Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper addresses questions about the use of metacognitive strategies in argumentative writing based on multiple sources and the influence of this use on the quality of student texts. For this purpose, think-aloud protocols and texts from a research project on material-supported argumentative writing in 8th grade geography lessons are analyzed and discussed. The analysis is based on a model of metacognition in argumentative writing using multiple sources, which we also propose in this paper. The results show that the use of metacognitive strategies is a challenge for the investigated target group but that their use, in particular the deployment of goal-setting strategies and planning strategies, enables students to write better texts.

In this study, we examined the relation between social perspective taking and writing quality among secondary school students in the United States. The participants included 214 middle and high school students (116 females), with a diverse demographic composition: 71.5% Hispanic, 10% White, 7% Pacific Islander, 5.6% Asian American, 2% African American, and 0.5% Native American. Students were asked to write an argumentative text after reading sources related to a historical topic in history class, and the quality of their essays was rated. Their social perspective taking was measured using a scenario-based assessment where students were presented with scenarios with social conflicts and provided open-ended responses related to various perspectives. These responses were coded based on their articulation, simple, and complex positioning. Structural equation modeling revealed that female students, although marginally significant, tended to have higher levels of social perspective taking compared to their male counterparts after controlling for English learner status, race/ethnicity, poverty status, and grade level. Additionally, perspective taking was positively related to the quality of argumentative writing after controlling for student demographic backgrounds. Future research should explore various dimensions of perspective taking and their impacts on writing in different genres to enhance our understanding of the relation between perspective taking and writing.

Despite growing interest in exploring the application of chatbots in language education, studies on the process of chatbot-assisted language learning are scant. This qualitative study uses activity theory to understand how English as a foreign language students engage with a chatbot, Argumate, when composing argumentative essays. Five Chinese undergraduate students performed an argumentative writing task with the assistance of Argumate. Screen recordings capturing the students’ writing processes, chat logs between the students and Argumate, the students’ argumentative essays, and their responses to a post-task questionnaire survey were collected and analysed. The results indicated that the students formed a learning community with Argumate in which they used various mediating tools, including online information sources, notes, translation tools, and typing assistants, to facilitate their interaction with the chatbot. Additionally, the student – Argumate collaborative writing was shaped by rules associated with meeting task requirements and following argumentative writing conventions. At the same time, the students’ need for additional scaffolds beyond those offered by Argumate posed challenges to their collaboration. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the complex interplay among students, chatbots, and other key elements in the activity system of chatbot-assisted writing and generate insights into the application of chatbots to writing pedagogy.

This paper has investigated the importance of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on (a) argumentative writing performance and (b) self-efficacy for writing of secondary school students. This intervention study additionally aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of alternating between individual and collaborative writing throughout the writing process (planning collaboratively, writing individually, revising collaboratively, and rewriting individually). A cluster randomized control trial (CRT) design was opted for. To investigate the effect of the intervention on secondary school students’ writing performance and self-efficacy for writing, multilevel analyses were performed. It was found that the presence of explicit instruction in combination with collaborative writing is positively related to argumentative writing performance and self-efficacy for writing. Alternating between individual and collaborative writing was not significantly different from collaborating throughout all phases of the writing process. More in-depth research into the quality of collaboration is, however, needed to gain insight into the interaction processes and writing processes that take place during collaborative writing.

This experimental study aimed to replicate and extend a previous efficacy study of an elementary grade content literacy intervention that demonstrated positive effects on students’ vocabulary knowledge depth, argumentative writing, and reading comprehension. Using a cluster (school) randomized trial design, this replication experiment was conducted with 5,494 first- and second-grade students in 30 elementary schools in an urban school district located in the southeastern USA. Teachers implemented thematic lessons (20 lessons) that provided an intellectual framework for helping students who acquire networks of related vocabulary knowledge while learning science and social studies content. Teachers integrated thematic lessons, concept mapping, and interactive read-alouds of conceptually related informational texts to enable their students to build networks of vocabulary knowledge and to transfer this knowledge to argumentative writing and collaborative research activities. Confirmatory analyses replicated positive findings on science vocabulary knowledge depth (ES = 0.50) and argumentative writing (ES = 0.24) and also extended positive findings to social studies vocabulary knowledge depth (ES = 0.56) and argumentative writing (ES = 0.44). Positive and statistically significant findings were not replicated on domain-general reading comprehension. Exploratory analyses indicated that students’ vocabulary knowledge depth partially mediated the impact of content literacy instruction on domain-specific argumentative writing outcomes.

Converging evidence indicates that argumentative thinking and writing are promoted by peer discourse. Here it is proposed that collaborative writing can serve as a bridge from peer discourse to individual argumentative writing. Three groups of sixth graders participated in a study that tested this hypothesis. Two of the groups took part in a month-long intervention that emphasized engagement and practice in dialogic argumentation. These two groups differed only in addition of a joint writing activity in one group. The third group served as a non-intervention control. Final individual essays showed superior performance by the joint writing group. Essays of the superior group more frequently included evidence-based arguments. They also more often integrated belief-incongruent statements with belief-congruent ones. Group differences transferred in several respects to essays on a new topic. Results support the claim that engagement in collaborative writing offers a promising path in developing argumentative writing.

Although automated writing evaluation (AWE) and artificial intelligence (AI) tools have been widely practiced in EFL/ESL writing instruction, there is a lack of empirical research on the effect of the integration of both AWE and AI feedback on students’ higher-order thinking (HOT). Therefore, this study is to explore the impact of integrating AWE and AI feedback on Chinese EFL undergraduates’ higher-order thinking (HOT) in argumentative writing based on Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Cognitive Feedback Theory. Pre- and post-tests and semi-structured interviews were used to study 64 third-year students in the English major at a Chinese public university for 16 weeks. The experimental group ( n = 32) received AWE (Pigai) and AI (ChatGPT) feedback, while the control group ( n = 32) received only AWE (Pigai) feedback. Quantitative results showed that EG students had significant improvements in higher-order thinking (HOT; analysis, evaluation, and creation; p < .001) with a high effect size ( d > 0.80), while the CG students had a smaller improvement ( d > 0.15). ANOVA confirmed that analysis had the highest effect size ( p < .001, η 2 = .862), followed by evaluation ( p < .001, η 2 = .818) and creation ( p < .001, η 2 = .812). Qualitative results showed that AWE and AI tools were complementary, in which AWE could help students correct superficial language errors, but AI could improve students’ higher-order thinking (HOT) in analysis, evaluation, and creation. They can focus on language and higher-order thinking (HOT) and optimized revision strategies. However, students also faced problems in understanding feedback and over-reliance on it.

The capacity to make effective argumentation in English writing is considered as a crucial ability in the field of second language writing. Currently, Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) adopt the product approach to teach argumentative writing, in which they stress the mode of learners’ written production and show little concern with cognition. For students’ sustainable development in argumentation skills, teachers are encouraged to employ a genre-based approach to cultivate students’ knowledge about different elements in argumentation. However, few empirical studies have investigated the efficacy of such classroom-based instruction on learners’ comprehensive development in EFL writing, including their knowledge about writing and performance in producing argumentation. This is particularly the case with reference to Chinese students learning to write argumentative texts in EFL. To fill the research gap, this quasi-experimental study was conducted with 74 EFL sophomores, who were randomly allocated to either an experimental group or a comparison group. The experimental group received a genre-based writing approach, while the comparison group experienced their conventional writing instruction. Students’ changes were analysed using pre- and post-writing test measures, open-ended questionnaires, and stimulated recall interviews. Our findings revealed more changes in the experimental groups’ knowledge about argumentation following the genre-based writing treatment than the comparison group. Specifically, the experimental group’s progress was obvious in the way they displayed their knowledge of the structure of discourse moves and of language features specific to the argumentative genre. They began to express their knowledge of the content, process, intended purposes, and audience awareness towards producing more genre appropriate texts in argumentation. They also showed enhanced self-reflection on their knowledge of argumentation. In addition, the genre-based approach had a positive effect on the experimental group’s argumentative writing development, as evidenced in their use of discourse move structures and their overall writing quality improvement. The conventional writing approach was not as effective in helping students to write an argumentation. Writing proficiency effects were observed in terms of the extent to which the students were developed. Pedagogical implications and limitations are also discussed.

Learner individual differences can play differential roles in learners’ performance on different task types of different complexity levels. This study investigates the differential role of domain-specific anxiety in second language (L2) learners’ performances on narrative and argumentative writing tasks. For this purpose, a group of 102 upper-intermediate L2 learners in Iran were asked to perform either a narrative or an argumentative writing task. The study also involved the measurement of learners’ L2 writing anxiety using the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) that represents somatic anxiety (negative feelings such as tension), cognitive anxiety (negative expectations, preoccupation with performance) and avoidance behavior (avoidance in writing). Moreover, the quality of learners’ writings was assessed by eliciting three measures of task performance, i.e. Complexity (clauses per T-unit and dependent clauses percentage), Accuracy (error-free clauses and T-units percentage) and Fluency (average number of words, T-units and clauses per text). Regarding the narrative task, negative relationships were found between cognitive anxiety and both accuracy measures; further, a significant negative correlation was found between somatic anxiety and an accuracy measure of narrations. On the contrary, the effect of writing anxiety on argumentative task performance was more extensive: negative correlations were observed between cognitive anxiety and all three measures of fluency, one complexity measure and one accuracy measure; avoidance behavior was also negatively associated with two fluency measures and one complexity measure. The implications of the study are discussed.

Because of the improvement-oriented nature of peer-feedback activities, students have to deal with errors (e.g., spelling and argumentation errors) when providing and processing peer-feedback on writing assignments. Despite the central role of errors in feedback activities, it is uncertain how students deal with errors and whether the dealing with errors is affected by interpersonal perceptions. Therefore, this study explores (1) whether cognitive sub-phases are distinguishable during the process of dealing with errors and (2) the extent to which dealing with errors is affected by interpersonal perceptions. Six dyads of Dutch 11th grade students provided and processed peer-feedback on argumentative texts while thinking-aloud, and they reflected on the processes in a post-interview. The think-aloud utterances and interviews were analyzed with a mixed-methods design, using quantitative content analyses, and qualitative thematic analyses. The dealing with errors during peer-feedback provision displayed two patterns: error identification either occurred simultaneously with the decoding and often any evaluation-related thoughts lacked, or error-identification occurred as a result of an interpreting/evaluating phase. Also during peer-feedback processing, two main patterns were observable: students either knew immediately whether they agreed with feedback, or they first had to study the feedback more thoroughly. Additionally, interpersonal perceptions seemed to affect most students implicitly during feedback provision, and most students explicitly during feedback processing. As such, this study provides empirical evidence for the existence of cognitive sub-phases in the process of dealing with errors during peer-feedback activities, and portrays how these activities may be affected by interpersonal perceptions.