Cover not available

Article published In: Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 25:2 (2022) ► pp.228–252

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Supporting university students’ argumentative source-based writing

ORCiD logo with link | University of Jyväskylä
ORCiD logo with link | Tampere University
Published online: 6 December 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00068.mar
Abstract
Argumentative writing from sources is a literacy practice that students commonly find challenging. The present article reports a descriptive study where students’ source-based writing in small groups was supported with either print-based or digital scaffolding. Students analyzed source texts given to them and used their analysis to compose a position paper on a controversial educational topic. Position papers were analyzed for depth and breadth of argumentation, stand and justifications, degree of transformation of source texts’ argumentation, and structure. The study suggests that students in both scaffolding groups were fairly capable of identifying relevant reasons representing various perspectives on the topic in source texts and using them to build an argument in their position papers. However, students seldom transformed the arguments by adding their own thoughts or connecting arguments across the texts. Further, quite a few students seem to struggle in structuring their essays: 41% of essays in the print-based scaffolding group and 24% of essays in the digital scaffolding group were unstructured. Instructional implications are discussed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Argumentative writing from sources
  • 3.Purpose and quality of written argumentation
  • 4.Struggles with source-based writing
  • 5.Representational tools to support students’ argumentation
  • 6.Aim and research questions
  • 7.Method
    • 7.1Subjects
    • 7.2Task and source texts
    • 7.3Digital and print scaffolds
    • 7.4Phases of work
    • 7.5Data analyses
      • 7.5.1Depth and breadth of argumentation in the students’ position papers
      • 7.5.2Stand and justifications in position papers
      • 7.5.3Degree of transformation of the source texts’ argumentation in the students’ position papers
      • 7.5.4Type of structure in position papers
      • 7.5.5Reliability of the analyses
      • 7.5.6Statistical analyses
  • 8.Results
    • 8.1Depth and breadth of argumentation in students’ position papers
    • 8.2Stands and justifications in students’ position papers
    • 8.3Degree of transformation of source texts’ argumentation in students’ position papers
    • 8.4Structure of position papers
  • 9.Discussion
  • 10.Limitations and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (58)
References
Anmarkrud, Øisten, Ivar Bråten & Helge I. Strømsø. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences 301: 64–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barzilai, Sarit, Shiri Mor-Hagani, Asnat R. Zohar, Talia Shlomi-Elooz & Ruthy Ben-Yishai. (2020). Making sources visible: Promoting multiple document literacy with digital epistemic scaffolds. Computers & Education 1571: Article 103980. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benetos, Kalliopi & Mireille Bétrancourt. (2020). Digital authoring support for argumentative writing: What does it change? Journal of Writing Research 12(1): 263–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bereiter, Carl & Marlene Scardamalia. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Jennifer, David Smith & Ross Brooker. (1998). From conception to performance: How undergraduate students conceptualise and construct essays. Higher Education 36(4): 449–469. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Henian, Patricia Cohen & Sophie Chen. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation 39(4): 860–864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Kyoo-Lak & David H. Jonassen. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development 50(3): 5–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coiro, Julie, Jesse R. Sparks & Jonna M. Kulikowich. (2018). Assessing online collaborative inquiry and social deliberation skills as learners navigate multiple sources and perspectives. In Jason. L. G. Braasch, Ivar Bråten & Matthew T. McCrudden (eds.), Handbook of multiple source use, 485–501. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuevas, Isabel, Mar Mateos, Elena Martín, María Luna, Ana Martín, Mariana Solari, González-Lamas Jara & Isabel Martínez. (2016). Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses from multiple sources: The role of writing beliefs and strategies in addressing controversy. Journal of Writing Research 8(2): 205–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davey, Beth. (1983). Think aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading 27(1): 44–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, Paul. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, Robert A., Charlotte E. Taylor & Helen Drury. (2005). Evaluating writing instruction through an investigation of students’ experiences of learning through writing. Instructional Science 331: 49–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forzani, Elena. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability (Doctoral dissertation), University of Connecticut, US. Retrieved from [URL]
Golder, Caroline & Delphine Pouit. (1999). For a debate to take place the topic must be debatable. Developmental evolution of the negotiation and debatability of arguments. In Jerry Andriessen & Pierre Coirier (eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing, 137–148. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grabe, William & Cui Zhang. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal 4(1): 9–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graff, Gerald. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granado-Peinado, Miriam, Mar Mateos, Elena Martín & Isabel Cuevas. (2019). Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 321: 2037–2058. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirvela, Alan & Qian Du. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?” Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(2): 87–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howard, Rebecca M., Tricia Serviss & Tanya K. Rodrigue. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Pedagogy 2.2: 177–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyytinen, Heidi, Erika Löfström & Sari Lindblom-Ylänne. (2017). Challenges in argumentation and paraphrasing among beginning students in educational sciences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 61(4): 411–429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keck, Casey. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(4): 261–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiili, Carita, Julie Coiro & Jari Hämäläinen. (2016). An online inquiry tool to support the exploration of controversial issues on the Internet. Journal of Literacy and Technology 17(1–2): 31–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiili, Carita, Leena Laurinen, Miika Marttunen & Donald J. Leu. (2012). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research 44(4): 448–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Meredith, M. Anne Britt & Aaron A. Larson. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology 25(3): 205–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Yongyan & Christine P. Casanave. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(2): 134–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Limpo Teresa, Andreia Nunes & António Coelho. (2020). Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Writing Research 12(1): 1–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
List, Alexandra. (2020). Investigating the cognitive affective engagement model of learning from multiple texts: A structural equation modeling approach. Reading Research Quarterly 56(4): 781–817. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
List, Alexandra, Hongcui Du & Hye Yeon Lee. (2021). How do students integrate multiple texts? An investigation of top-down processing. European Journal of Psychology of Education 361: 599–626. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
List, Alexandra & Alexander, P. A. (2018). Cold and warm perspectives on the cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. In Jason L. G. Braasch, Ivar Bråten & Matthew T. McCrudden (eds.), Handbook of multiple source use, 34–54. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Fulan & Paul Stapleton. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System 451: 117–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luna, Maria, Ruth Villalón, Mar Mateos & Elena Martìn. (2020). Improving university argumentative writing through online training. Journal of Writing Research 12(1): 233–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez, Isabel, Mar Mateos, Elena Martín & Gert Rijlaarsdam. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts. Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research 7(2): 275–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marttunen, Miika & Leena Laurinen. (2007). Collaborative learning through chat discussions and argument diagrams in secondary school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40(1): 109–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateos, Mar & Isabel Solé. (2009). Synthesizing information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at the different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education 241: 435–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateos, Mar, Isabel Solé, Elena Martín, Isabel Cuevas, Mariana Miras & Nuria Castells. (2014). Writing a synthesis from multiple sources as a learning activity. In Perry D. Klein, Pietro Boscolo, Lori C. Kirkpatrick & Carmen Gelati (eds.), Writing as a learning activity, 169–190. Studies in Writing. Volume 281. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mateos, Mar, Elena Martín, Isabel Cuevas, Ruth Villalón, Isabel Martínez & Jara González-Lamas. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction 361: 119–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Means, Mary L. & James F. Voss. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction 14(2): 139–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munneke, Lisette, Jerry Andriessen, Gellof Kanselaar & Paul Kirschner. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behavior 23(3): 1072–1088. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newell, George, Richard Beach, Jamie Smith & Jennifer VanDerHeide. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly 46(3): 273–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noroozi, Omid, Armin Weinberger, Harm J. A. Biemans, Martin Mulder & Mohammad Chizari. (2012). Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): a synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review 71: 79–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Michael E. (2008). Using argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument-counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology 100(3): 549–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Michael E. & Gregory Schraw. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education 76(1): 59–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perfetti, Charles A., Jean-François Rouet & Anne M. Britt. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In Herre van Oostendorp & Susan Goldman (eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading, 99–122. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salminen, Timo, Miika Marttunen & Leena Laurinen. (2010). Visualising knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26(5): 379–391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Baruk B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In Nathalie Muller-Mirza & Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont (eds.), Argumentation and learning. Theoretical foundations and practices, 91–126. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shi, Ling. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication 21(2): 171–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spivey, Nancy N. & James R. King. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly 24(1): 7–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Amelsvoort, Marie, Jerry Andriessen & Gellof Kanselaar. (2007). Representational Tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 16(4): 485–521. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Boxtel, Carla & Arja Veerman. (2001). Diagram-mediated collaborative learning. Diagrams as tools to provoke and support elaboration and argumentation. In Pierre Dillenbourg, Anneke Eurelings & Kai Hakkarainen (eds.), European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 131–138. Universiteit Maastricht: Maastricht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weston-Sementelli, Jennifer L., Laura K. Allen & Danielle S. McNamara. (2018). Comprehension and writing strategy training improves performance on content-specific source-based writing tasks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 28(1): 106–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Mary J. & Roger Bruning. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology 301: 166–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wingate, Ursula. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills’. Teaching in Higher Education 11(4): 457–469. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(2): 145–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2015). Academic literacy and student diversity: The case for inclusive practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, Christopher R. & Anne M. Britt. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning 14(1): 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, Christopher R., Anne M. Britt, Melina Petrovic, Michael Albrecht & Kristopher Kopp. (2009). The efficacy of a Web-based counterargument tutor. Behavior Research Methods 41(3): 691–698. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, Xi & Zhong Yao. (2015). Understanding the role of argument quality in the adoption of online reviews: An empirical study integrating value-based decision and needs theory. Online Information Review 39(7): 885–902. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Allagui, Besma
2024. A scaffolding intervention to improve self-efficacy in source-based argumentative writing. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
Demir, Burcu, Ymkje E. Haverkamp, Jason L.G. Braasch & Ivar Bråten
2024. Investigating the role of prior knowledge in comprehending intratextual and intertextual relationships when reading multiple texts. Learning and Individual Differences 111 ► pp. 102442 ff. DOI logo
Tarchi, Christian, Ruth Villalón, Nina Vandermeulen, Lidia Casado-Ledesma & Anna Paola Fallaci
2024. Recursivity in source-based writing: a process analysis. Reading and Writing 37:10 ► pp. 2571 ff. DOI logo
Bråten, Ivar, Ymkje E. Haverkamp, Natalia Latini & Helge I. Strømsø
2023. Measuring multiple-source based academic writing self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue