Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Negotiating Problems of Written Argumentation

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies from many countries report that secondary school students do not master written argumentation well enough. This article presents a case study from lower secondary school where the question of problems in written argumentation is approached from a different angle: instead of focusing on argumentative weaknesses in student texts, it concentrates on what students are capable of and struggle with when they write argumentative texts in cooperation with a scaffolding teacher. Findings from this study show that a clear text pattern communicated through teaching and teacher response helped weak as well as strong writers to improve common problems related to audience awareness and the structure of argumentative texts. In cooperation with a commenting teacher all students were also able to support a standpoint with more reasons and to strengthen their own position by refuting a counterargument, although to varying degrees. However, only a couple of revised texts suggest that students had the will, skill and insight needed to follow up teacher response that encouraged a more distanced view on heated debates, conflict negotiations, self-reflection and critical thinking.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The names of the school, students, and teacher are pseudonyms. “Dalen”, “the valley”, is a common Norwegian name, indicating that this is a school in a rural area.

  2. At the end of lower secondary school (year 10) students sit for two 5-h exams, writing texts in two official written standards of the Norwegian language, and now also in two different modes.

  3. For in depth discussions of possible explanations (see Andrews 1995; Hertzberg 2006).

References

  • Andrews, R. 1995. Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. 2005. Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text 25(1): 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R. and S. Mitchell. 2001. Essays in argument. Middlesex: Middelsex University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., P. Costello, and S. Clarke. 1993. Improving the quality of argument, 5–16: Final report. Hull: University of Hull, School of Education, Centre for Studies in Rhetoric.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., C. Torgerson, G. Low, N. McGuinn, and A. Robinson. 2006. Teaching argumentative non-fiction writing to 7–14 year olds: A systematic review of the evidence of successful practice. Technical report. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, R., C. Torgerson, G. Low, and N. McGuinn. 2009. Teaching argument writing to 7–14 year olds: An international review of the evidence of successful practice. Cambridge Journal of Education 39: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M.M. 1986. The problem of speech genres. In Speech genres and other late essays, ed. C. Emerson, and M. Holquist (trans: McGee, V.W.), 62–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Berge, K.L. 2005. Studie 6: Tekstkulturer og tekstkvaliteter. In Ungdommers skrivekompetanse. Bind II: Norskeksamen som tekst, ed. K.L. Berge, L.S. Evensen, F. Hertzberg, and W. Vagle, 11–190. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, K.L., Evensen, L.S., Hertzberg, F. and W. Vagle. 2005. Ungdommers skrivekompetanse. Bind I og II. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evensen, L.S., and W. Vagle. 2005. Oppgavesettene og elevenes oppgavevalg i KAL-årene. In Ungdommers skrivekompetanse. Bind I: Norsksensuren som kvalitetsvurdering, ed. K.L. Berge, L.S. Evensen, F. Hertzberg, and W. Vagle, 161–203. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, A., and I. Pringle. 1984. Why students can’t write arguments. English in Education 18(2): 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groom, N. 2000. “A workable balance”: Self and sources in argumentative writing. In Learning to argue in higher education, ed. S. Mitchell, and R. Andrews, 65–73. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertzberg, F. 2006. Genreskriving under senare skolår: att berätte räcker inte. I Louise Bjar (red.): Det hänger på språket! Lärande och språkutveckling i grundskolan, 295–317. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoey, M. 1983. On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igland, M.-A. 2008. Mens teksten blir til: Ein kasusstudie av lærarkommentarar til utkast. Oslo: Unipub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, K. 1984. Skrivförmåga. Studier i svenskt elevspråk. Malmø: Liber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. 1998. Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke, P., and M. O’Rourke. 1995. Argumentative writing and the extension of literacy. In Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argument, ed. P. Costello, and S. Mitchell, 194–207. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, L.W. 2000. Cyrano’s nose: Variations on the theme of response. Assessing Writing 7(1): 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle, I., and A. Freedman. 1985. A comparative study of writing abilities in two modes at the grade 5, 8 and 12 levels. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves, A.C. 1992. A comparative perspective on the performance of students in written composition. I d.s. (red.). The IEA study of written composition II: Education and performance in fourteen countries, 129–152. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

  • Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1985. Argumentative text structure and translation. Studia Philologica Jyväskylänsia 18.

  • Toulmin, S.E. 2003. The uses of argument, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H. 2001. The state of the art in argumentation theory. In Critical concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 11–26. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotskij, L.S. 1987. Thinking and speech. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume I: Problems of general psychology, ed. R.W. Rieber, and A.S. Carton, 39–288. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R.E. 2003. Toward an adequate pedagogy for rhetorical argumentation: A case study in invention. In Beyond postprocess and postmodernism. Essays on the spaciousness of rhetoric, ed. T. Enos, and K.D. Miller, 159–169. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education and Natural Sciences, Hedmark University College, Campus Hamar, Hamar, Norway

    Mari-Ann Igland

Authors
  1. Mari-Ann Igland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mari-Ann Igland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Igland, MA. Negotiating Problems of Written Argumentation. Argumentation 23, 495–511 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9167-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9167-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation