Search

Among other things, learning to write entails learning how to use complex sentences effectively in discourse. Some research has therefore focused on relating measures of syntactic complexity to text quality. Apart from the fact that the existing research on this topic appears inconclusive, most of it has been conducted in English L1 contexts. This is potentially problematic, since relevant syntactic indices may not be the same across languages. The current study is the first to explore which syntactic features predict text quality in Dutch secondary school students’ argumentative writing. In order to do so, the quality of 125 argumentative essays written by students was rated and the syntactic features of the texts were analyzed. A multilevel regression analysis was then used to investigate which features contribute to text quality. The resulting model (explaining 14.5% of the variance in text quality) shows that the relative number of finite clauses and the ratio between the number of relative clauses and the number of finite clauses positively predict text quality. Discrepancies between our findings and those of previous studies indicate that the relations between syntactic features and text quality may vary based on factors such as language and genre. Additional (cross-linguistic) research is needed to gain a more complete understanding of the relationships between syntactic constructions and text quality and the potential moderating role of language and genre.

Cohesive devices are essential elements that have long been recognized as important features of good writing. However, making use of them appropriately is viewed as problematic for learners. This descriptive qualitative study aimed to investigate Indonesian EFL learners' ability to use cohesive devices in their writings. Twenty EFL learners of a state university in Malang, East Java, Indonesia were required to write and send one piece of argumentative essay consisting of five paragraphs to be analyzed. Twenty essays were analyzed by identifying the number of correct and errors of grammatical cohesion. The errors were then evaluated to know the possible causes that contributed to the learners' errors. The results showed that the total number of grammatical cohesion used by the learners was 2386, while 175 of them performed errors. It was also found that there was a heavy reliance on the use of particular cohesive items. The intralingual transfer mostly caused the errors made by learners. This implied a need for writing teachers to apply strategies for the development of EFL learners' writing ability, such as exposing students to exercises, using collaborative learning, giving feedback, and using the learning management system.

The capacity to make effective argumentation in English writing is considered as a crucial ability in the field of second language writing. Currently, Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) adopt the product approach to teach argumentative writing, in which they stress the mode of learners’ written production and show little concern with cognition. For students’ sustainable development in argumentation skills, teachers are encouraged to employ a genre-based approach to cultivate students’ knowledge about different elements in argumentation. However, few empirical studies have investigated the efficacy of such classroom-based instruction on learners’ comprehensive development in EFL writing, including their knowledge about writing and performance in producing argumentation. This is particularly the case with reference to Chinese students learning to write argumentative texts in EFL. To fill the research gap, this quasi-experimental study was conducted with 74 EFL sophomores, who were randomly allocated to either an experimental group or a comparison group. The experimental group received a genre-based writing approach, while the comparison group experienced their conventional writing instruction. Students’ changes were analysed using pre- and post-writing test measures, open-ended questionnaires, and stimulated recall interviews. Our findings revealed more changes in the experimental groups’ knowledge about argumentation following the genre-based writing treatment than the comparison group. Specifically, the experimental group’s progress was obvious in the way they displayed their knowledge of the structure of discourse moves and of language features specific to the argumentative genre. They began to express their knowledge of the content, process, intended purposes, and audience awareness towards producing more genre appropriate texts in argumentation. They also showed enhanced self-reflection on their knowledge of argumentation. In addition, the genre-based approach had a positive effect on the experimental group’s argumentative writing development, as evidenced in their use of discourse move structures and their overall writing quality improvement. The conventional writing approach was not as effective in helping students to write an argumentation. Writing proficiency effects were observed in terms of the extent to which the students were developed. Pedagogical implications and limitations are also discussed.

This study investigates the effects of unscripted, scripted and guided online peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing, argumentative feedback quality and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of educational sciences. Participants were 52 students who were randomly divided over 26 dyads and randomly assigned to three conditions (unscripted, scripted and guided peer feedback conditions). An online peer feedback platform, named EduTech, was designed and these instructional supports were embedded within this platform. Students were asked to write an argumentative essay (individually), to engage in argumentative peer feedback with their learning partner (collaboratively), and finally to revise their essays based on feedback received (individually). The findings indicate that students in the scripted online peer feedback condition outperform the other two conditions in terms of argumentative essay writing, argumentative feedback quality and their domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Reading-to-write is an essential skill in academic writing, and reading-writing tasks have been widely adopted in standardized English tests. Much more recent literature on integrated reading-writing tasks has focused on writers’ use of source texts or the validity of integrated writing assessment, while little is known about whether the nature of the types of reading texts has any bearing on integrated reading-writing tasks. This study examines whether the types of reading texts (i.e., similar views or opposing views on a debatable issue) have any influence on second language (L2) students’ argumentative writing in terms of the use of argument elements and its overall quality. Fifty-four Chinese second-year university students majoring in English language teaching were asked to write an argumentative essay after reading texts with either similar views or opposing views. Results show that students reading texts with opposing viewpoints presented more data and higher overall quality of argumentative essays than students reading texts with similar viewpoints, although the latter group presented more counterargument data. Pedagogical implications on teaching argumentative writing are discussed.

The developmental patterns that learners follow as their language develops in syntactic complexity has gained much attention in L2 writing research recently. This study aims to contribute to the growing body of empirical literature testing the hypothesis that learners move through a set of stages in their use of complex structures for L1 Turkish learners of L2 English (Biber et al., 2011). It also aims to contribute to the limited literature on the within-genre topic effect on syntactic complexity. Complexity developmental stages of 90 intermediate level L1 Turkish learners were examined in their argumentative essays on three different topics (cell phones, online learning, and death penalty). Our findings showed that learners were developmentally in Stage 2 and Stage 3, with frequent use of finite adverbial clauses, attribute adjectives embedded in the noun phrase, and prepositional phrases as adverbials within the clause, which is in line with their proficiency level. Thus, our findings conform to the hypothesized stages of complexity development. Our findings also illustrated a significant effect of the death penalty topic on learners' complexity developmental stages, which is probably due to its greater cognitive demands as a more impersonal topic than the others.

This research was directed to find out whether there any significant correlation between students' critical thinking and argumentative writing skill in IAIN Bukittinggi. The researcher found several problems in the field, the problems were students got difficulties in starting and developing their ideas into writing a paragraph, they have limited vocabulary in the English language, and some of the students don’t use transition signals. This research employed a correlation design. The population of this research was the students of the fifth semester in Iain Bukittinggi. The researcher used random sampling were the students of class 5A, class 5B, and 5C to get the sample of the research. In collecting the data, the researcher used a reading test to know of students of critical thinking, and the researcher used of writing test to know of argumentative writing essay. The data were processed and analyzed by SPSS 22.0 Statistic technique of product-moment t-test formula and consulted the result into t-table with the level of significant α = 0.05.The result of this study by the correlation coefficient (r-x-y) 0,787. It shows that there was a high correlation between students' critical thinking and argumentative writing, it included the scale of r interpretation score between 0,60- 0,79. Furthermore, with df =25. And the level of significance 0,05 (α= 5%) obtained 0,396. So , try = 0,787 > t table 0,396. So, Ha was accepted and Ho was rejected. It means that there was a correlation between students critical thinking and argumentative writing skill.

In a writing activity students are required to transfer their knowledge to express their ideas on both what to say and how to say it. The difficulties in applying this knowledge have become obstacles for learners in constructing good writing. Consequently, these obstacles may cause the students to make errors. By adopting the notions of Error Analysis (EA) and the Surface Strategy Taxonomy as the theoretical frameworks, this study investigates the types of linguistic errors produced by the students. Along the way the sources behind the errors were also analyzed. This study employed the qualitative method design in which the case study approach was utilized. Ellis’ five-step procedure of EA was adopted to analyze the data of essays comprising of 150-300 words written by 23 EFL students of the fourth-semester at English Department at a state university. They were purposively selected as the participants of this study. It was found that omission was the most frequent errors identified in the students’ writings. Overall, 122 (63%) cases out of 195 cases were categorized under this type of errors. The number marker, verb-tense, article, preposition, subject-verb agreement, and pronoun were the categories of frequent errors made by the students, respectively. These were followed by addition (18%), misformation (15%), and misordering (5%). Significance to the source of errors, intralingual transfer turned out to be the main reason that provoked the blunder in the students’ writings. It was apparent that some of the interlinguistic contrast was the reason behind the errors. It appeared that the diverse systematical concept between the Indonesian language and English in terms of verb conjugation factor, inflectional morpheme, and auxiliary-verb abandonment were the strong contenders of the error sources. Additionally, interlingual transfer and context of learning also took part for the reason behind the errors.

Improving preservice teachers’ argumentative competence is a social and educational imperative. This study focuses on the contribution of a sequence of learning tasks, designed as epistemic practices and following a learning progression approach, to enhancing student teachers’ scientific argumentative writing. The participants were 47 preservice primary teachers who enrolled in a Developmental Psychology course, and one lecturer. Preservice teachers progressively acquired the vast majority of aspects involved in scientific argumentative writing. The most important difficulties experienced by the preservice teachers revolved around intertextuality and the creation of theses. Key conclusions on this teacher education experience are presented in the final section of the paper.

This study investigated the effects of explicit teaching of formulaic language on the overall quality of Turkish EFL university students’ argumentative writing. Forty-four freshmen and twenty-seven sophomores participated in the study, with half of them assigned to the experimental group and the other to the control group. Forty target formulaic language items were explicitly taught to the experimental group with a variety of activities for four hours in two weeks. The experimental group was found to increase the overall quality scores of their writing significantly after the intervention. They also outperformed the control group in the immediate post-test although a decrease was observed in the delayed post-test. Moreover, a significantly positive correlation was observed between the frequency of the formulaic language items used and the overall quality scores of the essays. It seemed that the explicit instruction of the target items raised the students’ awareness of formulaic language and improved the overall quality of their writing.

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.

Insight into aspects that guide teachers' decisions when assessing student text quality is crucial to an understanding of the validity of text scores. Such research has been lacking in the context of comparative methods which are, however, increasingly being used for text assessment purposes. This study reports on the aspects of argumentative texts that guide Flemish teachers' decisions when using the comparative judgement method. In using this method, teachers indicate which text of a pair is of higher quality. 27 teachers explained 23 comparative judgements in a decision statement, when comparing randomly selected texts written by 135 students in their fifth year of general secondary education. This resulted in 596 statements referring to 2054 segments of aspects of text quality. Firstly, an inductive analysis revealed that teachers consider a wide range of aspects with regard to text quality when making comparison decisions. Secondly, the deductive aggregation of these aspects showed that most decisions are informed by the organisation and argumentation of the texts. Lastly, almost all statements reported complex aspects of text quality, whereas half of the decision statements also showed a reflection on the rule-applying aspects of text quality. We conclude that comparative judgement encourages teachers to make decisions on complex and multiple aspects of text quality. Further research should elaborate on whether the aspects that informed teachers' decisions are related to the text they choose, and whether teachers differ in the aspects to which they refer.

In two experimental studies, we examined the effects of types of written production mode (hypertext writing versus linear writing, Study 1 and 2) and learning mode (performance versus observational learning, Study 2). Participants in Study 1 (Grade 10) were initiating the more formal academic argumentative text, while in Study 2 students (Grade 11) were familiar with the genre. Dependent variables were students' content knowledge, self-efficacy for writing and text quality. For the independent variable written production mode both studies did show interaction effects between learning condition and pretest scores. For content knowledge, students with lower prior content knowledge performed best in the hypertext condition; students with higher prior content knowledge in the linear condition. For self-efficacy, linear writing was most effective for students with initial high self-efficacy (Study 2 only). For text quality, students with relatively very strong initial writing skills performed best in the hypertext condition, students with weak initial writing skills in the linear condition (Study 2 only). For the independent variable learning mode for the hypertext text learning activity (performing versus observing), almost no differences in effects could be observed: performing the hypertext learning activities or observing these performances did not make a difference, except to students with relatively low initial topic knowledge: students with low prior knowledge performed better in the performing condition. These complex patterns of interactions between learning conditions and pretest variables are discussed.

The number of English language learners (ELLs) mainstreamed into regular classrooms continues to increase. Curricular writing standards required by the Common Core State Standards require students to write essays analytically in response to text(s). Many English Language Arts (ELA) teachers may worry about effectively delivering essay writing instruction to their ELL students while still meeting the needs of their proficient English-speaking students. This action research study is a direct response to the concern of two middle level teachers about the writing performance of students in their linguistically diverse classrooms on their state’s writing assessment. The study examined the effects of strategy-focused writing instruction on the argumentative essay-writing skills of 47 linguistically diverse seventh-grade students. The students received the strategy-focused writing instruction five days per week for 40 minutes over a 16-week period. Analyses of the data revealed that students’ overall writing performance increased significantly from pretest to posttest. Students also made significant gains across the pre- and posttest period in the following two domains: (1) Evidence and Elaboration and (2) Conventions of Standard English, but not on the Purpose, Focus, and Organization domain.

Nivå1

Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of an argument. In argumentative writing, the presence of logical fallacies such fallacies shows either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. The purpose of the study is to identify and discuss logical fallacies in the argumentative writing of Indonesian EFL learners. 40 argumentative essays were collected from the students of the English Department of the State University of Malang who have passed all the writing courses, including the course on argumentative writing. The results of the study shows that students still produced a number of logical fallacies in their work, some of which were so basic they can actually be avoided through simple, explicit instruction. Some pedagogical implications of the findings are also discussed.

For tertiary English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students, academic writing is not an easy task. It requires knowledge of the academic writing genres with their particular linguistic features. Moreover, academic writing demands good critical thinking. This research aims to explore the students' academic writing competencies that also focus on critical thinking. The research involved thirty-six first-year tertiary EFL students from a regular class of a private university in Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. The source for data collection was the students’ texts. Three texts were selected and the students were categorized into low, medium, and high levels of writing achievement. The text analysis utilized functional grammar rooted in systemic functional linguistics (Emilia, 2014). The analysis shows that the students, regardless of their levels of writing achievement, have little control over the schematic structure and linguistic features of an argumentative writing. The text analysis also shows that the students’ texts have some limitations as regards their critical thinking capacity. Still, a few examples of academic language were detected in the texts. The findings suggest that the lecturer should incorporate explicit teaching and cooperative learning activities to alleviate the students' difficulties and develop their academic writing and critical thinking capacity.

This study examined the use of a mobile-based technological tool known as Mobile-assisted Mind Mapping Technique (MAMMAT) to support ESL university students’ argumentative writing skills performance. The participants of this study were 45 ESL university students from two lecture groups at a public university campus in Peninsular Malaysia. The study employed a quasi-experimental research design. The experimental group was taught utilizing the MAMMAT whilst the control group was taught utilizing the conventional method. The pre-test and post-test scores were analysed through analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) results showed that there were statistically significant differences between the groups when test items were measured. As a conclusion, the MAMMAT has supported ESL university students’ argumentative writing skills performance. The study implicates that the use of MAMMAT can support students’ argumentative writing in ESL classroom.

The urgency for developing students’ critical thinking (CT) abilities has left English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers trying hard to integrate CT into their teaching practices. This study highlights the role of language as a way of thinking, judging and assessing. It seeks to investigate how the elements of CT are displayed in students’ essay so as to reveal the development of their CT skills. The data are in the form of essay written by the fourth semester Indonesian students taking essay writing course. The analysis is based on Stapleton’s criteria of CT (2001), i.e. claims, kinds of reasoning, the extent of evidence, recognition of opposing arguments and refutation, and fallacies. The results show that there are many weak arguments in the essays due to the insufficiency of reasons and evidence. It is highly possible for an essay to have multiple arguments. However, the logical correlations between them are not clearly articulated in the essays and many students fail to show them. Students also lack of refutation skills as they tend to accept a claim from other sources without trying to judge and evaluate it. While most conclusions are in the form of suggestion, they can be made better by clearly showing the position of the writer in relation the arguments posed in the essay. Fallacies are mostly found in the form of generalization and over-simplification. The results are expected to give insights to teachers about how CT skills could be effectively taught and improved in writing classes. Keywords: argumentative writing, critical thinking (CT), English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Mengembangkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Melalui Menulis Argumentatif Abstrak: Pentingnya mengembangkan kemampuan berpikir kritis (critical thinking atau CT) mahasiswa telah membuat para pengajar English as a Foreign Language (EFL) berusaha keras mengintegrasikan kemampuan berpikir kritis dalam pengajaran mereka. Penelitian ini menggarisbawahi peran bahasa sebagai sarana berpikir, menilai, dan mengevaluasi. Penelitian bertujuan untuk menggali bagaimana elemen-elemen berpikir kritis ditunjukkan dalam teks dan mengkaji perkembangan berpikir kritis dalam teks. Data berbentuk teks essay yang ditulis oleh mahasiswa semester 4 yang mengambil matakuliah Essay Writing. Data dianalisis berdasarkan kriteria Critical Thinking (CT) oleh Stapleton (2001), yaitu argument, reason , evidence, opposition an d refutation , conclusion, dan fallacy . Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa argumen sering lemah karena tidak didukung oleh alasan dan bukti yang cukup. Suatu esai sangatlah mungkin mengandung banyak argumen. Namun demikian, hubungan logis antar argumen tersebut tidak jelas dalam esai dan bahkan banyak mahasiswa gagal menunjukkan hubungan tersebut. Mahasiswa juga lemah dalam hal refutation skill karena mereka cenderung menerima klaim dari sumber lain begitu saja tanpa mencoba mengevaluasi dan mempertanyakannya. Kebanyakan kesimpulan berbentuk saran dan bisa dibuat lebih baik dengan menyatakan dengan jelas posisi penulis dalam menanggapi argumen-argumen yang dikemukakan di awal. Fallacy kebanyakan dalam bentuk generalisasi dan penyederhanaan berlebihan. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan masukan tentang bagaimana kelas menulis dapat dirancang secara efektif supaya dapat menumbuhkan baik kemampuan berpikir kritis maupun kemampuan berbahasa. Kata kunci: tulisan argumentatif, berpikir kritis, English as Foreign Language (EFL)

The aim of the present paper was to contribute to clarify the question of the relationship between conjunction density and writing quality, and examine if there were any differences among the participants in terms of the frequency of use of conjunctions in their compositions. The participants were 399 secondary education students. Results of the quantitative analysis showed a positive significant relationship between conjunction density and the composition global score. Fourth grade students outperformed third grade students in the use of conjunctions. The qualitative analysis revealed little variety in the participants’ use of conjunctions, especially among third-grade students. Participants experienced difficulty in using conjunctions especially adversative and additive ones.

This research is aimed at reconstructing cognitive processes experienced by Indonesian advancedwriters in five stages of writing: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. Three Indonesian advanced writers were involved to be sources to reveal the noumena or under-meaning structures that make their works come into existence. This research reveals that various ways experienced by every single writer in exploring inspiration, starting to write, developing ideas and arguments, revising draft, and determining them as final drafts.Learning from advanced writers isfruitful effortsto evolve our writing competence. Experiences, cognitions, interests, values, stylistics, metaphors, and mechanics are influential aspects in enriching their works.

One of the most problematic areas for foreign language learning is writing. Writing is the most sophisticated and complex achievement of the language system (Lerner, 1997). Writing requires the activation and coordination of orthographic, graphomotor and several linguistic skills including, but not limited to, semantics, syntax, spelling, and writing conventions (Scott, 1999; Singer & Bashir, 2004).With the development of cognitive psychology, metacognition has drawn more and more researchers’ attention and provides a new perspective for EFL writing, especially argumentative writing model. Since this strategy is a high-ordered executive skill by its components (planning, monitoring, and evaluating) this study investigated the effects of planning and monitoring skills as metacognitive strategies on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ argumentative writing accuracy. Sixty university students participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. They were at the intermediate level of English proficiency. Their language proficiency was determined by Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP) (Corrigan, 1979).The experimental group (EG) received metacognitive strategies-based writing instruction whereas the control group (CG) received only the routine writing instruction (Product Approach). After eight weeks of instruction both groups were post tested. Data were submitted to the independent T-Test analysis and the results showed that there was a positive effect in the experimental group's writing performance. The findings have implications for pedagogy as well as for research.

Writing is an important, complex skill which could be enhanced through the effective use of writing tools that are incorporated in word processors. The main objective of this study was to examine the effect of (repeated) electronic outlining on the quality of students’ writing products and perceived mental effort. The study also investigated how students appropriate and appreciate the outline tool. Data were collected from 58 ninth-grade students who wrote two argumentative texts about a topic they had previously discussed during several class sessions, meaning that ideas were generated and clustered beforehand. Students’ writing products were scored for Total Text Structure, Structure Presentation, and Hierarchical Elaboration of Arguments. Results reveal that first-time tool-use had no significant effect on students’ writing products and perceived mental effort. However, repeated use positively affected Structure Presentation and led to decreased perceived mental effort, but no significant effect was found on Total Text Structure and Hierarchical Elaboration of Arguments. Answers to a retrospective questionnaire showed that students quickly appropriated the tool with tool appreciation increasing with repeated use. This study suggests that in order to profit from electronic outlining, it is important to practice using the outline tool and to use it for complex tasks, requiring idea generation and organization.

A suposição cognitivista de que a consciência de um "esquema argumentativo" oriente as produções textuais dos indivíduos está longe de ser pacífica. Alternativamente, sugere-se que os elementos incluídos num texto seriam determinados pela consciência a respeito de parâmetros da situação de produção textual (finalidade, destinatário, etc.). Partindo-se desta controvérsia, investigou-se em que medida a reflexão sobre a "estrutura argumentativa" exerceria um impacto sobre os elementos que crianças e adultos jovens incorporariam a seus textos. A análise dos resultados mostrou que: ponto de vista e justificativa foram os elementos considerados indispensáveis a uma escrita argumentativa. Antecipação de contra-argumentos foi vista como relevante para a consecução do objetivo persuasivo do texto apenas quando eram rebatidos. A reflexão sobre elementos da "estrutura argumentativa" nem sempre correspondeu à inclusão destes nos textos produzidos. Tal inclusão dependeu primordialmente da avaliação dos elementos que mais contribuiriam para a consecução da finalidade persuasiva do texto - consciência retórica. The cognitive supposition that the awareness of an "argumentative scheme" gives orientation to the textual productions of individuals is rather controversial. As an alternative, it is suggested that the elements included in a text are determined by the awareness regarding the parameters of the situation of textual production (finality, the receiver, etc.). Starting from this controversy, the study investigated to which extent the reflection over the "argumentative structure" would exercise an impact over the elements that children and young adults would incorporate into their texts. The analysis of the results showed that: point of view and justification were the elements considered indispensable to an argumentative writing. The anticipation of counter-arguments was seen as relevant for the success of the persuasive objective of the text only when they were refuted. The reflection over elements of the "argumentative structure" did not always correspond to their inclusion in the texts produced. Such inclusion depended primarily on the evaluation of the elements that most contributed to the success of the persuasive finality of the text - rhetorical awareness.

The idea of whether repetition has any relation with the writing quality of the text has remained an issue that intrigues a number of scholars in linguistics and in writing studies. Michael Hoey (1991), Halliday and Hasan (1976) are two prominent works in presenting detailed and thoughtful analysis of repetition occurrences in the text. This study uses a model of lexical cohesion proposed by Witte and Faigley (1981) which itself is based on the taxonomies of cohesive ties presented by Halliday and Hasan (1976). The model deals with lexical cohesion and its subclasses, namely, repetition (same type, synonym, near-synonym, super-ordinate item, and general item) and collocation. The corpus includes five argumentative essays written by students in the field of English language literature. Five teaching assistants were asked to rank the papers on a five-point scale based on their perception of the papers’ writing quality. The results showed that the paper that received the lowest rating in terms of the writing quality was the one that included the largest number of repetition occurrences of the same type. The study concludes by arguing that repetition may not be considered as monolithic, and suggests that every type of repetition needs to be examined individually in order to determine what enhances and what deteriorates the writing quality.

Advances in technology, changes in communication practices, and the imperatives of the workplace have led to the repositioning of the role of writing in the global context. This has implications for the teaching of writing in schools. This article focuses on the argumentative essay, which is a high-stakes genre. A sample of work from one Grade 10 student identified as high performing in a township school in Cape Town (South Africa) is analysed. Drawing on the work of Ormerod and Ivanic, who argue that writing practices can be inferred from material artifacts, as well as critical discourse analysis, we show that the argumentative genre is complex, especially for novice first additional language English writers. This complexity is confounded by the conflation of the process and genre approaches in the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) document. Based on the analysis we discuss the implications of planning, particularly in relation to thinking and reasoning, the need to read in order to write argument and how social and school capital are insufficient without explicit instruction of the conventions of this complex genre. These findings present some insights into particular input needed to improve writing pedagogy for specific genres.

Pesquisas sobre a produção de textos argumentativos mostram que antecipar contra-argumentos e reagir a estes é uma das principais dificuldades na escrita deste tipo de texto. Este estudo investigou a habilidade de 157 crianças (segunda, quarta e sétima séries) gerarem contra-argumentos nos textos que produziam. Observou-se que, embora contra-argumentos apareçam ocasionalmente nos escritos da segunda série, só a partir da quarta essa presença se torna sistemática. Progressos relacionados à idade e escolaridade foram também registrados quanto ao número de contra-argumentos examinados num mesmo texto. A estrutura global dos textos produzidos (narrativo vs. opinativo) e o tema discutido não parecem ter afetado a produção de contra-argumentos pelas crianças, embora efeitos destes fatores tenham sido notados sobre o número de idéias usadas pelas mesmas para justificarem suas própria posições. Na discussão destes resultados examina-se o papel de fatores pragmáticos no desenvolvimento de contra-argumentos em textos escritos. Studies on argumentative text writing have shown that anticipating counterargument and reacting to them is one of the hardest demands of argumentative writing. The present study focused on second, fourth, and seventh graders’ ability to generate counterarguments in their writings. The results showed that, although counterarguments appear in some of the second graders’ writings, it is only after the fourth grade that their presence is systematically observed in children’s writing. Age- and schooling-related effects were also noted on the number of counterarguments examined per text. The global structure of the texts produced (a narrative vs. an opinion text) did not affect the production of counterargument by children, although a main effect of such factors was noted on the number of ideas children used to justify their own views. The role of pragmatic factors in the development of counterargument in written texts was taken into account when discussing these findings.

The aim of the current study is twofold: first, as bidirectional transfer has not been a common object of inquiry, the present study attempted to fill this gap by examining how bidirectional transfer occurs in the English and Persian writing of Iranian students, and second, this study shed some light on whether or not genre awareness could be achieved through explicit, implicit or without formal instruction. There have been 104 sophomore students who have all been passing a course in Essay Writing at the Payame-Noor University. They have been homogenized by performing a TOEFL proficiency test. The participants were randomly divided into the following three groups, an experimental group which received explicit genre- based approach, a control group which was instructed implicitly in comparison to the self study group with no-instruction treatment. A pre-test and a post-test were administered before and after the treatment. The quantitative analysis of the post-argumentative essays revealed that the experimental group outperformed the implicit and no-formal instruction groups after receiving models with explicit instruction on the elements of Toulmin's (2003) model under study.