This study investigated differences among student writers at three grade levels (6, 8, and 10) and between expert writers and students in terms of the uses and complexity of arguments presented in their persuasive texts. To analyze argument, a model was developed that could account for structural variations occurring across a range of writing situations. The characteristics of this model were defined using categories derived from a model of semantic representation in discourse. The structural analysis revealed that (a) argument was the predominant organizational structure for all writers, (b) more than 80% of students produced arguments involving some form of opposition, (c) embedded arguments identified in expert texts functioned primarily as countered rebuttals and in student texts as subclaims or reservations, and (d) expert texts contained relatively higher frequencies of warrants, countered rebuttals, and modals, and student uses of these substructures increased with grade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applebee, A.
, Langer, J. A., Jenkins, L. B., Mullis, I.V.S., & Foertsch, M. A. (1990). Learning to write in our nation's schools: Instruction and achievement in 1988 at grades 4, 8, and 12. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
2.
Applebee, A.
, Langer, J., & Mullis, I.V.S. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievements in American schools (Report No: 15-W-02). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
3.
Backus, J. W.
(1959). The syntax and semantics of the proposed international algebraic language of the Zurich ACM-GAMM Conference. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing, 125-132.
4.
Beaugrande, R. de
(1980). Text, discourse, and process: Toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5.
Bereiter, C.
, & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Berthoff, A. E.
, & Stephens, J. (1988). Forming Thinking Writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
7.
Bracewell, R. J.
(in press). Commentary on S. Yeh's Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing Writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
8.
Bracewell, R. J.
, & Breuleux, A. (1994). Substance and romance in analyzing think-aloud protocols. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 55-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Britton, J. K.
, & Black, J. B. (1985). Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Clark, R. A.
, & Delia, J. G. (1976). The development of functional persuasive skills in childhood and early adolescence. Child Development, 1, 1008-1014.
11.
Coirier, P.
, & Golder, C. (1993). Production of supporting structure: Developmental study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2, 1-13.
12.
Conner, U.
(1990). Linguistic/ rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.
13.
Conner, U.
, & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/ rhetorical approach. Text, 5, 309-326.
14.
Cooper, C.
, Cherry, R., Copley, B., Fleischer, S., Pollard, B., & Sartisky, M. (1984). Studying the writing abilities of a university freshman class: Strategies from a case study. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research (pp. 19-52). New York: Guilford.
15.
Crammond, J. G. (1997). An analysis of argument structure in expert and student persuasive writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
16.
Crowhurst, M.
(1980). Syntactic complexity and teachers' quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 223-231.
17.
Crowhurst, M.
(1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185-201.
18.
Crowhurst, M.
(1991). Interrelationships between reading and writing persuasive discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 314-335.
19.
Crowhurst, M.
, & Piche, G. L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 101-109.
20.
D'Angelo, F.
(1975). A conceptual theory of rhetoric. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
21.
Durst, R.
, Laine, C., Schultz, L. M., & Vilter, W. (1990). Appealing texts: The persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 7, 232-255.
22.
Ehninger, D.
, & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead.
23.
Enos, R. L.
, & Lauer, J. M. (1992). The meaning of heuristic in Aristotle's Rhetoric and its implications for contemporary rhetorical theory. In S. P. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. D. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 79-87). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
24.
Ericsson, K. A.
, & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Fahnestock J.
, & Secor, M. (1983). Teaching argument: A theory of types. College Composition and Communication, 34, 20-30.
26.
Ferris, D. R.
(1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 45-61.
27.
Flower, L.
, & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans, and prose: An inquiry into the nature of planning. Written Communication, 1, 229-244.
28.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1975). Representing logical and semantic structure of knowledge acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 371-358.
29.
Frederiksen, C. H.
(1986). Cognitive models and discourse analysis. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Written Communication Annual: An International Survey of Research and Theory, Vol. I: Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 227-267). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, Bracewell, R. J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1990). The cognitive representation and processing of discourse: Function and dysfunction. In Y. Joanette, & H. Brownell (Eds.), Discourse ability and brain damage: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 69-110). New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
31.
Frederiksen, C. H.
, Donin-Frederiksen, J., & Bracewell, R. J. (1987). Discourse analysis of children's text production. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time (pp. 254-290). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
Fulkerson, R.
(1996). The Toulmin model of argument and the teaching of composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited: Argument redefined (pp. 45-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Golder, C.
, & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse Processes, 18, 187-210.
34.
Hairston, M. C.
(1981). Successful writing: A rhetoric for advanced composition. New York: Norton.
35.
Halliday, M.A.K.
, & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
36.
Hays, J. N.
, & Brandt, K. S. (1992). Socio-cognitive development and students' performance on audience-centered argumentative writing. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 202-229). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
37.
Hays, J. N.
, Brandt, K. M., & Chantry, K. H. (1988). The impact of friendly and hostile audiences on the argumentative writing of high school and college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 39-416.
38.
Kintsch, W.
(1977). On comprehending stories. In M. A. Just, & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 33-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Kintsch, W.
, & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
40.
Knudson, R. E.
(1991). Effects of instructional strategies, grade, and sex on students' persuasive writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 59(2), 141-152.
41.
Knudson, R. E.
(1992). Analysis of argumentative writing at two grade levels. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 169-179.
42.
Knudson, R. E.
(1993). The development of written argumentation: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study Journal, 22, 167-184.
43.
Kopperschmidt, J.
(1985). An analysis of argumentation. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 2. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
44.
Lauer, J. M.
(1994). Persuasive writing on public issues. In W. R. Winterowd, & V. Gillespie (Eds.), Composition in context: Essays in honor of D. C. Stewart (pp. 62-72). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
45.
Lautamatti, L.
(1987). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 92-126). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
46.
Matsuhashi, A.
, & Gordon, E. (1985). Revision, addition, and the power of the unseen text. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Revision and response (pp. 226-249). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
47.
McCann, T. M.
(1989). Student argumentative writing: Knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62-76.
48.
McCulley, G. A.
(1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 269-282.
49.
McCutchen, D.
(1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431-444.
50.
McCutchen, D.
(1987). Children's discourse skills: Form and modality requirements of schooled writing. Discourse Processes, 10, 267-286.
51.
Meyer, B.
(1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
52.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
. (1980). Writing achievement, 1969-1979: Results from the third assessment, Vols. I, II, III. Denver, CO: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
53.
Nauer, P.
(1963). Revised report on the algorithmic language ALGOL 60. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 6, 1-17.
54.
Newell, A.
, & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
55.
O'Keefe, B. J.
, & Delia, J. D. (1979). Construct comprehensiveness and cognitive complexity as predictors of the number and strategic adaptation of arguments and appeals in a persuasive message. Communication Monographs, 46, 231-240.
56.
Pellegrini, A. D.
, Galda, L., & Rubin, D. L. (1984). Context in text: The development of oral and written language in two genres. Child Development, 55, 1549-1555.
57.
Perelman, C.
(1982). The realm of rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
58.
Perelman, C.
, & Oltrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
59.
Ramage, J. D.
, & Bean, J. C. (1992). Writing arguments (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
60.
Rieke, R. D.
, & Sillars, M. O. (1975). Argumentation and the decision-making process. New York: John Wiley.
61.
Rottenburg, A. T.
(1985). Elements of argument. New York: St Martin's.
62.
Rubin, D. L.
, & Piche, G. L. (1979). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 293-316.
63.
Scardamalia, M.
, Bereiter, C., & Goelman, H. (1982). The role of production factors in writing ability. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know (pp. 173-210). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
64.
Scardamalia, M.
, & Paris, P. (1985). The function of explicit discourse knowledge in the development of text representations and composing strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 1-39.
65.
Sowa, J. F.
(1984). Conceptual structures: Information processes in mind and machine. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
66.
Stein, N. L.
, Bernas, R. S., Calicchia, D. J., & Wright, A. (1996). Understanding and resolving arguments: The dynamics of negotiation. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp.257-287). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
Stein, N.
, & Miller, C. A. (1990). I win—you lose: The development of argumentative thinking. In J. Voss, D. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and instruction (pp.265-290). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68.
Stein, N. L.
, & Miller, C. A. (1993). A theory of argumentative understanding: Relationships among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory and reasoning. Argumentation, 7, 183-204.
69.
Thomas, S. N.
(1986). Practical reasoning in natural language (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
70.
Toulmin, S. E.
(1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71.
Toulmin. S. E.
, Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
72.
van Dijk, T. A.
, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
73.
Voss, J. F.
, Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem solving skill in the social sciences. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research theory Vol. 17 (pp. 165-213). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
74.
Witte, S. P.
(1983). Topical structure and writing quality: Some possible text-based explanations of readers' judgments of students' writing. Visible Language, 17, 177-205.
75.
Woods, W. A.
(1975). What's in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding (pp. 35-84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
