Abstract

A study is described in which the effectiveness of a computer program (Hermes) on improving argumentative writing is tested. One group of students was randomly assigned to a control group and the other was assigned to the experimental group where they are asked to use the Hermes program. All students were asked to write essays on controversial topics to an opposed audience. Their essays were content-analysed for dialectical traits. Based on this analysis, it was concluded that the experimental group wrote more dialectically effective essays than the control group, and the amount of difference between the control and experimental groups was related to the students' intellectual developmental level, as assessed by the Measure of Epistemological Reflection (MER). It is concluded that argumentative writing, operationalized here as dialectical writing, can be improved by computer-assisted instruction, but that attempts to teach such forms of thinking and writing need to take into account students' capacity to benefit from such instruction. Such capacity is defined here as intellectual development