Improving Academic Argumentation through Online Training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58213/ell.v3i2.41Keywords:
Argumentation, academic writing, online training, self-efficacyAbstract
The task of writing a convincing argument based on a number of conflicting sources is challenging. As a means of supporting a formal viewpoint, it is important to grasp and organise arguments and counterarguments from a wide range of sources. Even though it's a difficult ability to learn, argumentative writing isn't widely taught at Spain's colleges and universities. Furthermore, there are just a few web resources for this sort of project. For this reason, we created and assessed a virtual training programme for distance learning university students to help them build cohesive and well-structured arguments. This pre-post research, which used a control group design, had 68 students. Through video lectures and practise activities with immediate feedback, the course provided comprehensive teaching in a cost-free and open-source manner (e.g., Moodle). Study participants' written outputs increased in structure, counter-arguments and integration into a single piece of writing after getting instruction.. Medium or maximum integration items, on the other hand, were still restricted in scope. As they show, online argumentative writing teaching may be employed in higher education with positive results for all participants. For their part, students still need help honing their skills in the area of integrative synthesis. These observations have led us to recommend additional changes to the training curriculum.
References
• Allen, L. K., Jacovina, M. E., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Computer-based writing instruction. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research, 2nd ed. (pp. 316–329). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Andrews (2000) Introduction: Learning to Argue in Higher Education. In Andrews, R., & Mitchell, S. (2000). Learning to argue in higher education. Heinemann (pp 1-14).
• Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872710
• Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., &Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 973-999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8
• Benetos, K., &Bétrancourt, M. (2020). Digital authoring support for argumentative writing: What does it change? Journal of Writing Research 12(1), 263-290. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.09
• Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., &Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students´ academic writing: an intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 419-438. TESOL Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092
• Braasch, J. L., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 180-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cedpsych.2013.03.003
• Britt, M. A., &Rouet, J. F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139048224.017
• Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argumentative essays. Written Communication, 28(1), 70-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741088310387891
• Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118255971
• Castelló, M. &Mateos, M. (2015) Faculty and student representations of academic writing at Spanish universities / Las representaciones de profesores y estudiantessobre la escrituraacadémicaen las universidadesespañolas, Cultura y Educación, 27 (3), 477-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2015.1072357
• Coll, C., Mauri, T., &Onrubia, J. (2008). Análisis de los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizajemediados por las TIC: una perspectivaconstructivista. [Analysis of teaching and learning processes mediated by ICT: a constructivist perspective]. In E. Barberá, T. Mauri & J. Onrubia. Cómovalorar la calidad de la enseñanzabasadaen las TIC [How to assess the quality of teaching based on ICT] (pp. 47-62). Barcelona: Graó.
• CRUE (2013). Universitic 2017: Análisis de las TIC en las UniversidadesEspañolas. [Analysis of ICT in Spanish Universities]. http://www.crue.org/SitePages/Universitic.aspx
• Deane, M., &Guasch, T. (2015) Learning and Teaching Writing Online. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) M., Deane, & T., Guasch (Vol. Eds.) Studies in Writing, Vol 29, Learning and Teaching Writing Online: Strategies for Success. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 9789004290846_002
• De La Paz, S. & Felton, M. (2010). Reading and writing from multiple source documents in history: Effects of strategy instruction with low to average high school writers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 174-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cedpsych. 2010.03.001
• De La Paz, S., Monte‐Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., &Piantedosi, K. W. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31-52. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/rrq.147.
• European Commission (2013). Survey of Schools: ICT in Education. Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe’s Schools. Recuperado de: https://ec.europa.eu/ digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.pdf
• Ferretti, R.P. & Lewis, W.L. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur and J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 113-140). New York: The Guilford Press. doi:10.5860/choice.45-2158.
• Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015). Arguing to agree: Mitigating my-side bias through consensus-seeking dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317-331. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0741088315590788
• Fuentes-Pardo, J.M., Ramírez-Gómez, A., García-García, A. I., &Ayuga, F. (2012). Web-based education in Spanish Universities. A Comparison of Open Source E-Learning Platforms. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 10 (6) 47-53. Retrieved from http://oa.upm.es/16806/1/INVE_MEM_2012_137405.pdf
• Hewett, B. L. (2015). Grounding principles of OWI. In B. Hewett & K. De Pew (Eds.) Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction. Perspectives on Writing. (pp. 33-92) Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Available at https://wac.colostate.edu/books/owi/.
• Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1999). Raising awareness of the generic structure and linguistic features of essay introductions. Language Awareness, 8(3-4), 190-200. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09658419908667128
• Hyytinen, H., Löfström, E., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2016). Challenges in Argumentation and Paraphrasing Among Beginning Students in Educational Sciences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1147072
• Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Does automated feedback help students learn to write? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(2), 173-196. https://doi.org/ 10.2190/ec.42.2.c List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an Integrated Framework of Multiple Text Use. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 20-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514 Lundstrom, K., Diekema, A., Leary, H., &Haderlie, S. (2015). Teaching and learning information synthesis: An intervention and rubric based assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 9(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2015.9.1.176
• MacArthur, C. A., Jennings, A., &Philippakos, Z. A. (2019). Which linguistic features predict quality of argumentative writing for college basic writers, and how do those features change with instruction? Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1553-1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11145-018-9853-6
• Mateos, M., &Solé, I. (2009). Synthesizing information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(4), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03178760
• Mateos, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction, 36, 119–138. http://doi.org/ 10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300
• Mayer, R.E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816819
• Nanjappa, A. & Grant, M. M. (2003). Constructing on constructivism: The role of technology. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education (Online serial). 2 (1). Retrieved from: ttp://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.htm
• Nelson, N. (2008). The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first-to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z
• Numrich, C., & Kennedy, A. S. (2017). Providing guided practice in discourse synthesis. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 28-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.258
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument- counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
• Nussbaum, M. E., &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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students' writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92. https://doi.org/ 10.3200/jexe.76.1.59-92
• Pajares F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735603 08222
• Palermo, C., & Wilson, J. (2020). Implementing automated writing evaluation in different instructional contexts: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Writing Research 12(1), 63-108. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.04
• Perin, D. (2013). Best practices in teaching writing for college and career readiness. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur and J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 48-70). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Poulin, R., &Straut, T. (2016). WCET Distance Education Enrollment Report 2016. Retrieved from WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies website: https://wcet.wiche.edu/ sites/default/files/WCETDistanceEducationEnrollmentReport2016.pdf
• Raedts, M., Van Steendam, E., De Grez, L., Hendrickx, J., & Masui, C. (2017). The effect of different types of video modelling on undergraduate students' motivation and learning in an academic writing course. Journal of Writing Research, 8, 399 - 435. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.08.03.01
• Rijlaarsdam, G., Janssen, T., Rietdijk, S., & van Weijen, D. (2018). Reporting design principles for effective instruction of writing: Interventions as constructs. In R. Fidalgo, K. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Eds.), Design Principles for Teaching Effective Writing (Vol. 34, pp. 280-313). Leiden; Boston: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004270480_013
• Roddy, C., Amiet, D. L., Chung, J., Holt, C., Shaw, L., McKenzie, S., ... & Mundy, M. E. (2017). Applying best practice online learning, teaching, and support to intensive online environments: An integrative review. Frontiers in Education, 21, 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/ feduc.2017.00059
• Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students' processes and products. L1-Educational studies in language and literature, 4(1), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af
• Solé, I., Teberosky, A., &Castelló, M. (2012) Academic communication strategies in post- graduate studies. In C Thaiss, G. Bräuer, P. Carlino, L. Ganobcsik, Williams, & A. Sinha (Eds.), Writing programs worldwide: Profiles of academic writing in many places (pp. 365– 375). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/wpww/
• Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Espino, S., &Minguela, M. (2013). Integrating Information: An Analysis of the Processes Involved and the Products Generated in a Written Synthesis Task. Written Communication, 30(1), 63-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312466532.
• Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Reporting writing process feedback in the classroom: Using keystroke logging data to reflect on writing processes. Journal of Writing Research 12(1), 109-140. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05
• van Ockenburg, L., van Weijen, D., &Rijlaarsdam, G. (2019). Learning to Write Synthesis Texts: A Review of Intervention Studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3) 401- 428.https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.01.
• van Weijen, D., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2019). Source use and argumentation behavior in L1 and L2 writing: A within-writer comparison. Reading and writing, 32(6), 1635- 1655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9842-9
• Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ Helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for academic purposes, 11(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jeap.2011.11.001
• Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741088309333019.
