NO219 Chapter Notes -Brie, Animal Communication, John Benjamins Publishing Company
DepartmentNorth American Studies
This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 10 pages of the document.
‘Argument!’helping students understand what essay writing is about
King’s College London, Department of Education and Professional Studies, Waterloo Rd, London SE1 9NH, UK
Argumentation is a key requirement of the essay, which is the most common genre that
students have to write. However, how argumentation is realised in disciplinary writing is
often poorly understood by academic tutors, and therefore not adequately taught to
students. This paper presents research into undergraduate students’concepts of argument
when they arrive at university, difﬁculties they experience with developing arguments in
their essays, and the type and quality of instruction they receive. A three-part deﬁnition
which describes argumentation by what students need to learn was used as the framework
for analysis. The ﬁndings show that students have only partial or incorrect concepts of
argument. Many problems they encounter are caused by their lack of knowledge of what
an argumentative essay requires, particularly of the need to develop their own position in
an academic debate. The advice they receive does not make the requirements explicit and
refers to argumentation inconsistently and vaguely. An ‘essay writing framework’, based
on the three-part deﬁnition, is proposed for improving the teaching of writing. This
approach puts argumentation at the centre of instruction and explains other aspects of
writing according to the function they have in the development of argument.
Ó2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The ‘argumentative essay’is the most common genre that undergraduate students have to write (Wu, 2006: 330),
particularly in the arts, humanities and social sciences (Hewings, 2010). Although the nature of the essay varies considerably
across and even within disciplines, the development of an argument is regarded as a key feature of successful writing by
academics across disciplines (Lea & Street, 1998). Nesi and Gardner (2006) found in their survey of assessed writing in 20
disciplines that a commonly recognised value of the essay is its ‘ability to display critical thinking and development of an
argument within the context of the curriculum’(p. 108). However, many students struggle with argumentation: they are
either unaware that they are expected to develop an argument in their essays, or have difﬁculty in doing so (Bacha, 2010;
Davies, 2008), often because they have acquired starkly different concepts of argument at secondary school (Andrews,
1995). At university, they receive little help, as argumentation is not explicitly taught in most undergraduate programmes
in the UK (Mitchell & Riddle, 2000). General advice on academic writing is usually provided in writing guidelines presented in
course handbooks, and through tutors’feedback on student essays; however, these methods have limitations. Lea and Street
(1998) found that students have difﬁculty in applying general writing guidelines to their particular writing contexts. Tutors’
feedback comments are often of the categorical type, such as the imperative ‘Argument!’written in the margins of student
essays (Lea & Street, 1998; Mutch, 2003). Tutors tend to use this comment vaguely when they feel that the writer has
somehow breached the writing conventions expected in the discipline, to indicate ‘different deﬁciencies from reasoning, to
referencing to structure and style’(Mitchell & Riddle, 2000: p. 17). It has been claimed that the vague use of the term reﬂects
*Tel.: þ44 20 78483536.
E-mail address: email@example.com.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap
1475-1585/$ –see front matter Ó2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 145–154
Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.
tutors’own uncertainty over the concept of argument (Lea & Street, 1998; Mitchell & Riddle, 2000). It may also reﬂect
a broader uncertainty over the requirements of the essay, of which tutors tend to have only ‘tacit’knowledge (Jacobs, 2005:
Much has been written on the rhetorical and linguistic structure of arguments, and on academic writing in general, while
less attention has been paid to the teaching and learning of argumentation. This is surprising, given the important role of
argument in the academic essay. The research reported in this article investigated learning needs and teaching provision in
a case study of ﬁrst-year undergraduate students in an applied linguistics programme at a British university. In this pro-
gramme, like in most in that ﬁeld, the argumentative essay is the main writing and assessment format. The study had the
1. To identify the concepts of ‘argument’students have when arriving at university.
2. To explore the difﬁculties students experience with argumentation in academic writing.
3. To discuss the limitations of current instruction and make recommendations for improvements.
In the next sections, concepts and uses of the term argument, as well as issues with learning and teaching argumentation
will be explored.
2. Concepts of argument
The term ‘argument’is used in different ways in academic discourse, ranging from the philosophical construct of premises
and conclusions (Toulmin, 1958) to diverse writing practices (Mitchell et al., 2008). It can refer to individual claims or the
whole text. In reference to individual claims, argument means that a proposition is supported by grounds and warrants. As
Davies points out, this type of argument requires the ability to make inferences, and can be taught through syllogisms such as
‘if Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal’(2008: p. 328). In reference to the whole text, ‘argument’is
deﬁned by Andrews (1995:p.3)as‘a process of argumentation, a connected series of statements intended to establish
a position and implying response to another (or more than one) position’.Toulmin, Reike, and Janik (1984: p. 14) deﬁne
argument similarly as ‘the sequence of interlinked claims and reasons that, between them, establish content and force of the
position for which a particular speaker is arguing’. According to these deﬁnitions, the core component of argumentation is
clearly the development of a position, which can also be regarded as equivalent to the development of an argument. Another
component is the presentation of the position through the logical arrangement of the propositions that build this position,
which is mentioned in Andrew’sdeﬁnition as the ‘connected series of statements’, and in Toulmin et al’s as the ‘sequence of
interlinked claims and reasons’. However, there is a third component which students have to learn in order to write argu-
mentative essays, which is ‘to analyse and evaluate content knowledge’(Wu, 2006: 330). This component concerns the
selection of relevant information from sources, and its use in the development of the position.
As this study focuses on the teaching and learning of argumentation, these three components, (1) the analysis and
evaluation of content knowledge, (2) the writer’s development of a position, and (3) the presentation of that position in
a coherent manner, will be used as the deﬁnition of ‘developing an argument’in this paper. The deﬁnition is useful from
a pedagogic perspective because it describes the abilities writers need to develop in order to be successful in writing
argumentative essays (Wu, 2006). As will be shown later, the deﬁnition is also helpful for identifying students’learning needs,
as well as shortcomings in the teaching of argumentative writing.
Research has shown that many academic teachers and students have fuzzy concepts of argumentation, which may be
linked to a fuzzy understanding of what the genre ‘essay’entails. As Johns (2008) points out, essay is difﬁcult to deﬁne as
a genre, because it is used as an umbrella term for various types of discipline-speciﬁc writing, and the characteristics of
structure, register and argumentation vary greatly across disciplines. It is therefore obvious that the speciﬁc requirements of
the essay in a given discipline should be explained to students by disciplinary experts. At the same time, the essay has low
prestige being a student genre, not one that disciplinary experts have to write. Their understanding of the exact nature of the
essay in their discipline may therefore be implicit and vague. Furthermore, what is accepted as a well-formed and valid
argument in an essay depends on the discipline’s value system and epistemology, and there is great variation across disci-
plines (Andrews, 2010; Samraj, 2004).
To explore students’and tutors’conceptualisations, Mitchell et al. (2008) interviewed ﬁrst-year students and tutors in
three disciplines. The students had partial understandings of argument, for instance ‘a for-and-against structure sandwiched
between introduction and conclusion’(p. 235). Tutors were equally uncertain about the concept. When asked how they
taught students to argue, they used critique, critical analysis and even opinion as interchangeable terms of explanation. In Lea
& Street’s (1998) study, academic tutors across a range of disciplines recognised argument as the key element of successful
writing, but had difﬁculty to explain the nature of a well-developed argument. In their feedback to students, they referred to
‘what feels like familiar descriptive categories such as “structure and argument”,“clarity”and “analysis”’ (p. 163). Mitchell and
Riddle (2000: p. 17) notice that academics also have weak understanding of related abilities such as ‘analysis’and ‘evaluation’.
Equally vague is tutors’interchangeable use of the term ‘argument’in the plural form (e.g. ‘you did not back up some of your
arguments’), and in the singular form (e.g. ‘you failed to provide a coherent argument’). This obscures the fact that it is the
development of a position, reﬂected in ‘the large-scale structuration of the essay’(Andrews, 1995: p. 139), rather than the
U. Wingate / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 145–154146
Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.
evidence for individual claims, that determines the quality of an essay. This conceptual uncertainty leads to unhelpful advice
and inadequate teaching of argumentation. As Swales (1990: p. 84) argues, students need appropriate content and formal
schemata in order to make ‘allowable contributions’to a genre. The formal schemata concern the rhetorical elements of the
genre, such as structure, style, and register, and are needed for the appropriate presentation of the writer’s position
(Component 3 of the deﬁnition). As these schemata were formed by previously encountered texts, Students new to university
will have schemata of previously encountered texts, i.e. essays they had to write at school, which may need to be adjusted for
the genres required at university.
3. Learning argumentation
School essays are often conﬁned to relatively simple argumentative structures (Andrews, 1995). A typical essay in
humanities subjects requires that the writer states a claim on a controversial issue and supports this claim by evidence in
order to convince the audience (Wood, 2001). This genre often takes the format of the ‘ﬁve paragraph’essay which consists of
the introduction of the topic, the statement of a claim, three supporting paragraphs for the claim and a concluding paragraph
(Bacha, 2010). In contrast to school writing which tends to invite the statement of the author’s personal opinion, academic
writing requires the presentation of a considered opinion, based on the careful analysis of various and conﬂicting sources
(Andrews, 1995). Furthermore, writing at university is seldom about making one claim, and therefore requires structures that
can support more complex ideas. Therefore, students new to university have to adjust previously learnt formal schemata such
as structure and register.
The three components of developing an argument, used as the deﬁnition in this paper, pose considerable difﬁculties for
the novice writer. Analysing and evaluating content knowledge presupposes a certain level of subject knowledge which
would enable students to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information in the literature. Due to their lack of subject
knowledge, however, many students struggle to identify conﬂicting points of view in the literature (Andrews, 1995). The
second element, establishing a position, requires expressing a ‘voice’and a ‘stance’(Street, 2009) in an academic debate
conducted by experts, and achieving a ‘workable balance between self and sources’(Groom, 2000: p. 65). ‘Voice’and ‘stance’
are among the ‘hidden features’of academic writing described by Street (2009), which have much impact on the success of
writing, but are rarely made explicit to students. The difﬁculties these requirements pose for the novice writer have been
widely discussed (e.g. Ivanic, 1998; Lillis, 2001). Groom (2000) describes three patterns of difﬁculty. The ﬁrst, called ‘solipsistic
voice’, means that students express their own experiences and opinions without reference to the literature. The second, the
‘unaverred voice’refers to students who offer ‘a patchwork of summaries of other authors views’(p. 67) without making own
claims. The reason for this rather typical pattern is students’lack of conﬁdence in taking a stance in relation to published
authors. Essays that present the unaverred voice are usually accused of lacking criticality. The third pattern is the ‘unat-
tributed voice’; here students make propositions sound as if they were their own idea when in fact they were taken from
The third component of developing an argument, the presentation of the writer’s position in a coherent manner, involves
the ‘arrangement and re-arrangement’of propositions at the macro level (Andrews, 1995; p.29) so that the development of
the position is reﬂected in a logical text structure. According to Andrews, this component is not addressed in most study
guides and textbooks. It requires an adjustment of the formal schema of structure which is difﬁcult for students who have so
far only learnt to support one claim in a simple formulaic structure.
4. Teaching argumentation
The importance of making argumentation ‘the focus of deliberate educational practices’has been repeatedly stressed (e.g.
Davies, 2008:p.327;Mitchell & Riddle, 2000); however, this is not part of the teaching provision in undergraduate pro-
grammes at British universities, where argument is in some cases taught generically on Critical Thinking courses. Never-
theless, as Mitchell and Riddle (2000: p. 27) assert, argument cannot be modelled and transferred from one context to
another, because the genre ‘argumentative essay’and therefore the nature of argumentation are highly discipline-speciﬁc,
and should therefore be taught by ‘mainstream teaching staff’(Mitchell & Riddle, 2000: p.18). By contrast, Davies (2008)
proposes the teaching of argument through syllogisms and claims that the skill of logical inference-making can be learnt
outside the discipline. This approach is based on the Toulmin model which describes argument by the units of claim, grounds,
warrant and backing (Toulmin et al., 1984). Mitchell and Riddle (2000) used the Toulmin approach for teaching argument in
various disciplines, after having simpliﬁed its terminology from ‘claim, grounds and warrant’to ‘then, since, because’.
The Toulmin model is also followed in some study guides (e.g. Fairbairn & Winch, 1996); however, it seems that it renders
itself more easily to the analysis and construction of single claims and is less helpful at the macro level. Although Mitchell and
Riddle (2000) claim that the model can be applied to longer texts, there is no evidence of how this would work. Therefore, it
seems that if the Toulmin model is used in the teaching of argumentation, it needs to be combined with methods that address
the large-scale structure or macro level of the essay. Indeed, most authors who advocate the Toulmin model also recommend
additional procedures to address the macro level. Mitchell & Riddle suggest a four-stage procedure concerned with the overall
text organisation; similarly, Bacha (2010) used the Toulmin model in combination with organisational plans adapted from
Reid (1988).Davies (2008) also proposes a six-step procedure for planning and developing the whole essay, and only in step 5
is the syllogistic argument form used ‘to guide the connection between premises and conclusions’(Davies, 2008: p. 336).
U. Wingate / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 145–154 147
You're Reading a Preview
Unlock to view full version