Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentative Writing Behavior of Graduate EFL Learners

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analyzed the argumentative writing behavior of Iranian graduate learners of English as Foreign Language in their English essays. Further, the correlations between the use of argument elements and overall writing quality as well as soundness of produced arguments were investigated. To this end, 150 essays were analyzed. The sample essays were found to be predominantly deductive in terms of rhetorical pattern. Moreover, they mainly utilized ‘data’ and ‘claim’ most frequently with secondary elements of argument (i.e., counterargument claim, counterargument data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data) as the least produced elements. Overall writing quality co-varied significantly positively with the uses of claims, data, counterargument claims, counterargument data, rebuttal claims, and rebuttal data. Essays rated high in terms of overall writing quality were further rated for soundness and relevance of the arguments. The results demonstrate that even for advanced language learners good surface structure cannot necessarily guarantee well thought-out logical structure. The pedagogical implications for writing instruction and research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdollahzadeh, E. 2010. Undergraduate Iranian EFL learner’s use of writing strategies. Writing and Pedagogy 2(1): 65–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacha, N. 2010. Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 93: 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J.A., and M.A. Britt. 2011. Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication 28(1): 70–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, D., R. Fahey, S. Feez, S. Spinks, and C. Yallop. 2000. Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide. Sydney: Macquarie University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M. 2007. Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication 58: 385–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambliss, M.J. 1995. Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly 30(4): 778–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. 2008. An investigation into the preference for discourse patterns in the Chinese EFL learning context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 182: 188–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J.P. 2001a. Markedness in intercultural discourse: A study of Chinese EFL students’ discourse patterns. PhD thesis, in ERIC, RIE June 2001 searching codes: Chen, Jianping/ED448593.

  • Clark, D.B., and V. Sampson. 2007. Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education 29: 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coirier, P., J.E.B. Andriessen, and L. Chanquoy. 1999. From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing. In Foundations of argumentative text processing, ed. P. Coirier, and J. Andriessen, 1–28. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crammond, J.G. 1998. The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication 152: 230–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, A.S., R. Roscoe, and S.D. McNamara. 2014. What is successful writing? An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write successful essays. Written Communication 31(2): 184–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bernardi, B., and E. Antolini. 1996. Structural differences in the production of written arguments. Argumentation 10: 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., S. Simon, and J. Osborne. 2004. Tapping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88: 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helms-Park, R., and P. Stapleton. 2003. Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(3): 245–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, W., and J. Lavery. 2008. Critical thinking: An introduction to the basic skills, 5th ed. Ontario: Broadview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husin, M.S., and K. Ariffin. 2012. The rhetorical organization of English argumentative essays by Malay ESL students: The placement of thesis statement. The Journal of Asia TEFL 9(1): 147–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G.J., and A. Takao. 2002. Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education 86(3): 314–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, H., and C. Rinnert. 2008. Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubota, R. 1998. An investigation of L1–L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 69–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. 2008. Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, L., and Reiser, B. 2005. Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

  • Lawson, A. 2003. The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education 25(11): 1387–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunsford, K.J. 2002. Contextualizing Toulmin’s model in the writing classroom: A case study. Written Communication 19(1): 109–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D.S., S.A. Crossley, and R. Roscoe. 2013. Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods 45(2): 499–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, M.L., and J.F. Voss. 1996. Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction 14: 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller Mirza, N., and A. Perret-Clermont (eds.). 2009. Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Németh, N., and J. Kormos. 2001. Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: the case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research 5: 213–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, G.E., R. Beach, J. Smith, and J. VanderHeide. 2011. Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly 46(3): 273–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, G.E., D. Bloome, and A. Hirvela. 2015. Teaching and learning argumentative writing in high school English Language Arts classrooms. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E.M., and C.M. Kardash. 2005. The effects of goal instructions and texts on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology 97(2): 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E.M., and G. Schraw. 2007. Promoting argument - counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education 76: 59–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong, J., and L.J. Zhang. 2010. Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(3): 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preiss, D.D., J.C. Castillo, E.L. Grigorenko, and J. Manzi. 2013. Argumentative writing and academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences 28(3): 204–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, J., and E. Karabacak. 2010. The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System 38(3): 444–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., M. Garcia-Mila, and S. Gilabert. 2013. What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Education research 83(4): 483–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashidi, N., and Z.A. Dastkhezr. 2009. A comparison of English and Persian organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of International Language English 8: 131–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Revilla, M., and W.E. Saris. 2013. The split-ballot multitrait-multimethod approach: Implementation and problems. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 20(1): 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusfandi, R. 2015. Argument-counterargument structure in Indonesian EFL learners’ English argumentative essays: A dialogic concept of writing. RELC Journal 46: 181–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41: 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., and D.B. Clark. 2008. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education 92: 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W.A. 2003. Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Science 12(1): 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W.A., and K. Millwood. 2005. The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23: 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B.B. 2009. Argumentation and learning. In Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. N. Muller Mirza, and A.-N. Perret-Clermont, 91–126. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B.B., Y. Neuman, J. Gil, and M. Ilya. 2003. Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12: 219–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S. 2008. Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 31: 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton, P. 2001. Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written Communication 18: 506–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton, P., and Y. Wu. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takao, A.Y., and G.J. Kelly. 2003. Assessment of evidence in university students’ scientific writing. Science & Education 12(4): 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 2003. The uses of argument, vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., C. Dobbs, and J. Scott. 2013. Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication 30(1): 36–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uysal, H. 2008. Tracing the culture behind writing: rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(3): 183–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varghese, S.A., and S.A. Abraham. 1998. Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S.C. 2002. Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, E.M. 1985. Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U. 2012. Argument! Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(1): 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, C.R. 2011. Argumentation across the. Written Communication 28(2): 193–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C.R., M.A. Britt, and J.A. Butler. 2009. Argumentation schema and the side bias in written argumentation. Written Communication 26: 183–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D.L. 1997. The central role of fallacious thanking in science education. Science Education 81: 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., and F. Nemet. 2002. Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(1): 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the editors and anonymous reviewers of the Argumentation Journal for their meticulous feedback on the earlier drafts of this paper. Nonetheless, all the other potential follies are the authors’ responsibility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh

  2. University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh

  3. Kharazmi University, Karaj, Iran

    Mohammad Amini Farsani

  4. University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Maryam Beikmohammadi

Authors
  1. Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Amini Farsani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maryam Beikmohammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esmaeel Abdollahzadeh.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 8.

Table 8 Definitions and examples of argumentation elements used in student essays
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 9.

Table 9 Analytic scoring rubric for argumentative writing
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdollahzadeh, E., Amini Farsani, M. & Beikmohammadi, M. Argumentative Writing Behavior of Graduate EFL Learners. Argumentation 31, 641–661 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9415-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9415-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation