Changes in Argumentation Performance: Effects of Teacher-Student Collaborative Assessment
-
Xiaoyan Xu
Xiaoyan XU is a professor at the School of Foreign Languages, Southwest Jiaotong University. Her research efforts have focused on English writing and syntactic complexity.
Yuexin Zhong (corresponding author) is a research associate at the School of International Studies, Chengdu College of Arts and Sciences. Her research interests have focused on second language acquisition and syntactic complexity.
and
Zimeng Shao
Zimeng Shao is a postgraduate student at Southwest Jiaotong University. His research interests include syntactic complexity and English writing.
Abstract
This paper compares the effectiveness of one-semester-long instruction of teacher-student collaborative assessment (TSCA) and trained peer review assessment (TPRA). Dependent variables include occurrence of structural elements of the simplified Toulmin model, and improvement of argumentation substance which refers to the quality of reasoning reflected in Toulmin structural elements. Eighty-one sophomore English majors from TSCA group (n=41) and TPRA group (n= 40) were asked to construct two argumentative essays at both the beginning and the end of the semester. The results reveal that the TSCA group produced significantly more counterargument claims and rebuttal data. Additionally, the TSCA group significantly outperformed TPRA group in constructing stronger counterargument claim, rebuttal claim and rebuttal data.
About the authors
Xiaoyan XU is a professor at the School of Foreign Languages, Southwest Jiaotong University. Her research efforts have focused on English writing and syntactic complexity.
Yuexin Zhong (corresponding author) is a research associate at the School of International Studies, Chengdu College of Arts and Sciences. Her research interests have focused on second language acquisition and syntactic complexity.
Zimeng Shao is a postgraduate student at Southwest Jiaotong University. His research interests include syntactic complexity and English writing.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by China Foreign Language Education Fund (10th Batch) granted by Beijing Foreign Studies University, directed by Prof. Xiaoyan XU [Grant Number: ZGWYJYJJ10A130], and Sichuan Research Center of Foreign Languages and Literature, and Higher Education Press, directed by Yuexin ZHONG [Grant Number: SCWYGJ21-10].
References
Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10(1), 19-28.Search in Google Scholar
Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.05.00110.1016/j.jeap.2010.05.001Search in Google Scholar
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-510.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5Search in Google Scholar
Cho, K., & Macarthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a002195010.1037/a0021950Search in Google Scholar
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-110.1007/s11251-010-9146-1Search in Google Scholar
Coffin, C. (2004). Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: The role of argument in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.00210.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577-589. https://doi.org/10.1037/a001470210.1037/a0014702Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310999049010.1017/S0272263109990490Search in Google Scholar
Gere, A. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory and implications. Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.00210.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002Search in Google Scholar
Hamilton, C. W. (2007). The effects of student-centered and traditional models of teaching on reading skills [Doctoral dissertation]. Florida International University.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa10.1191/1362168805lr169oaSearch in Google Scholar
Hughes, W., & Lavery, J. (2015). Critical thinking: An introduction to the basic skills (5th ed). Broadview Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688000040010310.1177/136216880000400103Search in Google Scholar
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.00310.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.003Search in Google Scholar
Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45(1), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.00510.1016/j.system.2014.05.005Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Y., & Li, S. (2017). 英语学习者议论文论证结构特征研究[Analysis of argument structure in Chinese EFL argumentative writing]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 40(1), 100-107.Search in Google Scholar
Memari Hanjani, A. (2013). Peer review, collaborative revision and genre in L2 writing [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Exeter.Search in Google Scholar
Memari Hanjani, A. (2016). Collaborative revision in L2 writing: Learners’ reflections. ELT Journal, 70(3), 296-307. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv05310.1093/elt/ccv053Search in Google Scholar
Memari Hanjani, A., & Li, L. (2014a). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 44, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.00410.1016/j.system.2014.03.004Search in Google Scholar
Memari Hanjani, A., & Li, L. (2014b). EFL learners’ written reflections on their experience of attending process-based, student-centered essay writing course. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 149-166.Search in Google Scholar
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.00310.1016/j.system.2004.11.003Search in Google Scholar
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.00310.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003Search in Google Scholar
Min, H. T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.00410.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.004Search in Google Scholar
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.15710.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157Search in Google Scholar
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59-92. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-9210.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92Search in Google Scholar
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.01210.1016/j.system.2010.06.012Search in Google Scholar
Qiu, L. (2017). “产出导向法”语言促成环节过程化设计研究[The step-by-step design of language activities in the production-oriented approach]. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 386-396.Search in Google Scholar
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_310.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3Search in Google Scholar
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727080241717610.1080/17437270802417176Search in Google Scholar
Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. (2015). Assessing the quality of arguments in students’ persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.00610.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.006Search in Google Scholar
Sun, S. G. (2017). “师生合作评价”课堂反思性实践研究[Teacher-student collaborative assessment in classroom teaching: A reflective practice]. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 397-406.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, S. G. (2019). “师生合作评价”的辩证研究[Optimizing teacher-student collaborative assessment: Dialectical research]. Modern Foreign Languages, 42(3), 419-430.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, S. G. (2020). 拓展学习视角下师生合作评价实践中的教师自我发展[Teacher development by applying teacher-student collaborative assessment: An expansive learning perspective]. Foreign Languages in China, 1, 75-84.Search in Google Scholar
Tan, S. (2017). Teaching and learning second language argumentative writing in genre-based writing classes: Comparing the effects of pedagogical treatments on L2 argumentation performance [MA Thesis]. University College London.Search in Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-910.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9Search in Google Scholar
Wen, Q. F. (2016a). The production-oriented approach to teaching university students English in China. Language Teaching, 1, 1-1510.1017/S026144481600001XSearch in Google Scholar
Wen, Q. F. (2016b). “师生合作评价”: “产出导向法”创设的新评价形式[Teacher-student collaborative assessment: A new assessment form in production-oriented approach]. Foreign Language World, 5, 37-43.Search in Google Scholar
Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.00110.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. R. (2012). Individual differences in the “Myside bias” in reasoning and written argumentation. Written Communication, 29(4), 477-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108831245790910.1177/0741088312457909Search in Google Scholar
Wu, J. (2003). 大学生英语论说文语篇结构特征调查——篇章主题句和段落主题句的使用[A survey on the argument structure of college students’ English argumentation: The use of thesis statement and topic sentence]. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2, 35-42.Search in Google Scholar
Xu, K. R. (2006). 现代大学英语中级写作下[Contemporary college English intermediate writing (Book 2)]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F., & Meng, W. T. (2013). The effects of online feedback training on students’ text revision. Language Learning and Technology, 17(2), 220-238.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, L. L. (2017). “产出导向法”的教学有效性研究[An experimental study on the effectiveness of the production-oriented approach]. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 369-376.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, W. J. (2016). 基于“产出导向法”的大学英语课堂教学实践[Applying production-oriented approach to college English classrooms: A teaching experiment]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2, 106-114.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, W. J. (2017). “产出导向法”对大学英语写作影响的实验研究[An experimental study on the effect of the production-oriented approach on college students’ English writing quality]. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 377-385.Search in Google Scholar
| 1. Claim(s) (5%) (modified by Tan,2017) | Thesis statement: 2 | Topic sentence: 2 | Conclusion:l | |||||
| Score: 2- Provides clear stance and at least 2 predictors Score: 1- Provides either stance or predictors Score: 0- Provides no thesis statement | Score: 2-at least 2 topic sentences related to the predictors in thesis statement Score: 1-any topic sentence is unrelated to predictors Score: 0-no topic sentence or all topic sentences are unrelated to predictors | Score: 1-thesis statement is restated in conclusion part Score: 0-thesis statement is not restated in conclusion | ||||||
| 2. Data (25%) | Score: 25 | Score: 20 | Score: 15 | Score: 10 | Score: 0 | |||
| a. Provides multiple reasons for the claim (s), and b. All reasons are sound/acceptable and free of irrelevancies | a. Provides multiple reasons for the claim(s), b. Most reasons are sound/acceptable and free of irrelevancies, but one or two are weak | a. Provides one to two reasons for the claim b. Some reasons are sound/acceptable, but some are weak or irrelevant | a. Provides only one reason for the claim(s), or b. The reason provided is weak or irrelevant | a. No reasons are provided for the claim(s); b. None of the reasons are relevant to/ support the claim (s) | ||||
| 3. Claim(Counterargument s)/Alternative Point (s) (modified of View (by 10the %) present | Score: 10 | Score: 5 | Score: 0 | |||||
| Provides explicitly counterargument claim(to the claims s)/alternative view(s) that are totally relevant | Provides vaguely counterargument claim (s)/alternative view(s) that are partly relevant to the claims | Does not provide counterargument counterargument claim(s)/alternative claim(s)/alternative view(s); or view(s) are not relevant to the claims | ||||||
| 4. Counterargument Data/Supporting Reasons for Alternative Point(s) of View (25%) | Score: 25 | Score: 20 | Score: 15 | Score: 10 | Score: 0 | |||
| a. Provides multiple reasons for the counterargument claim(s) alternative view(s), and b. All counterarguments/reasons for the alternative view(s) are sound/acceptable and free of irrelevancies | a. Provides multiple reasons for the counterargument claim(s)/alternative view (s), and b. Most counterarguments/reasons for the alternative view(s) are sound/acceptable and free of irrelevancies, but one or two are weak | a. Provides one to two reasons for the counterargument claim(s) /alternative view (s),and b. Some counterarguments/reasons for the alternative view(s) are sound/acceptable, but some are weak or irrelevant | a. Provides only one reason for the counterargument claim(s)/ alternative view(s), or b. The counterargument/reason for the alternative view is weak or irrelevant | a. No reasons are provided for the counterargument claim(s)/alternative view b. None of the reasons are relevant to/ support the counterargument claim(s)/ alternative view(s) | ||||
| 5. Rebuttal Claim(s) (10%) (modified by the present study) | Score: 10 | Score: 5 | Score: 0 | |||||
| Provides explicitly rebuttal claim(s) that are totally relevant to the counterargument claims | Provides vaguely rebuttal claim(s) that are partly relevant to the counterargument claims or counterargument data | Does not provide rebuttal claim(are not relevant to s); or rebuttal claim(s)/alternative view(s) the counterargument claims | ||||||
| 6. Rebuttal Data (25%) | Score: 25 | Score: 20 | Score: 15 | Score: 10 | Score: 0 | |||
| a. Refutes/points out the weaknesses of all the counterarguments, and b. All rebuttals are sound/acceptable c. The reasoning quality of all the counterarguments | a. Refutes/points out the weaknesses of all the counterarguments, and b. Most rebuttals are sound/acceptable, but one or two are weak c. The reasoning quality of most rebuttals are stronger than that of the counterarguments, while one or two are equal to that of the counterarguments | a. Refutes/points out the weaknesses of all the counterarguments, and b. Some rebuttals are sound/acceptable, but c. The reasoning quality of some rebuttals are stronger than that of the counterarguments, while some are weaker than that of the counterarguments | a. Refutes/points out the weaknesses of some b. Few of the rebuttals are sound/acceptable; most of them are weak, or c. The reasoning quality of that of the counterarguments | a. No rebuttals are provided; or b. None of the rebuttals can refute the counterarguments | ||||
© 2022 FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Testing and Assessment
- Changes in Argumentation Performance: Effects of Teacher-Student Collaborative Assessment
- Dynamic Assessment of College EFL Learners’ Speaking Proficiency: A Case Study
- Teacher Development
- Who Are We, What Can We Do, and What Do We Think? Review on EAP Teacher Development
- Second Language Acquisition
- A Development Study on the Ordering Distribution of Temporal Adverbial Clauses by Chinese EFL Learners Based on Dependency Treebank
- Second Language Teaching
- Narrating the Past in Different Contexts: C-BI Approach to the Present Perfect and Past Simple
- Second Language Writing
- The Application of Pragmatic Presupposition in Developing Critical Thinking of Writing
- Source Work in China-Based and Western SSCI Journal Articles: Preferences of Reporting Structures of English Academic Articles Published in China and in English-Speaking Countries
- Abstracts
- Chinese Abstracts
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Testing and Assessment
- Changes in Argumentation Performance: Effects of Teacher-Student Collaborative Assessment
- Dynamic Assessment of College EFL Learners’ Speaking Proficiency: A Case Study
- Teacher Development
- Who Are We, What Can We Do, and What Do We Think? Review on EAP Teacher Development
- Second Language Acquisition
- A Development Study on the Ordering Distribution of Temporal Adverbial Clauses by Chinese EFL Learners Based on Dependency Treebank
- Second Language Teaching
- Narrating the Past in Different Contexts: C-BI Approach to the Present Perfect and Past Simple
- Second Language Writing
- The Application of Pragmatic Presupposition in Developing Critical Thinking of Writing
- Source Work in China-Based and Western SSCI Journal Articles: Preferences of Reporting Structures of English Academic Articles Published in China and in English-Speaking Countries
- Abstracts
- Chinese Abstracts
