A CASE STUDY OF ARGUMENT PATTERNS IN JAPAN AND KOREAN EFL LEARNERS’ ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v13i1.8792

Keywords:

argumentation, argumentative essay, argumentation pattern, Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP)

Abstract

Argumentation is crucial in education in activating students’ critical thinking and increasing their ability in thinking reflectively. TAP model as an integrated assessment framework could be used to measure their critical thinking. Thus, the aims of the study are (1) to identify the elements of the argument structures in the Japanese and Korean EFL learners’ argumentative essays, based on the (adapted) Toulmin model, (2) to evaluate the quality of the Japanese and Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing based on the uses of the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP), and (3) to determine whether female and male learners have the same or different quality of argument pattern. A qualitative descriptive research design and a library research approach were carried out on this study to answer the research questions. Library research was used to collect sources and evaluate the sources taken from the ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. The data sources were the Japanese and Korean EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Based on the quality of arguments, all students covered 1–4 levels. The highest was level 2, and the lowest was level 4. It tends to be the majority of students who are still in level 2. It needs practice to write argumentatively in order to shape the writing ability to organize a good surface structure and acceptable arguments.


Author Biographies

Amaliah Amaliah, Applied Linguitics Study Program of UNIKA Atma Jaya Indonesia, Indonesia

Amaliah is a doctoral student in Atma Jaya Catholic University. She earned her master degree from Indraprasta PGRI University in Jakarta. She had taught in a hotel and cruise ship program in one of the institutions in west java.

Farnia Sari, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Tridinanti, Indonesia

Farnia Sari is a lecturer of English Education Study Program in Tridinanti University, Palembang.  Her research interests include Applied Linguistics and TEFL and has published extensively in the area of EFL in education.

Agus Wahyudi, STIK Bina Husada

Agus Wahyudi is a lecturer of STIK Bina Husada since 2008. He had a Magister’s degree in English Education in Universitas Sriwijaya. His research interests are English education in EFL context, ESP, and TEFL.

References

Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/psychology/social-psychology/arguing-and-thinking-rhetorical-approach-social-psychology-2nd-edition?format=PB&isbn=9780521567398

Clark D. B., Stegmann K., Weinberger A., Menekse M., Erkens G. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning environments to support students’ argumentation. In Erduran S., Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P. (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 217–243). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Muhsin-Menekse-2/publication/227038689_Technology-

Enhanced_Learning_Environments_to_Support_Students'_Argumentation/links/58b1fea3a6fdcc6f03f93537/Technology-Enhanced-Learning-Environments-to-Support-Students-Argumentation.pdf

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

Ferretti, R. P., & Graham, S. (2019). Argumentative writing: Theory, assessment, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 32, 1345-1357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x

Grandgirard, J., Poinsot, D., Krespi, L., Nénon, J. P., & Cortesero, A. M. (2002). Costs of secondary parasitism in the facultative hyperparasitoid Pachycrepoideus dubius: Does host size matter? Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 103(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A

Herrick, J. (1998). The history and theory of rhetoric. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315404141

Heng, L. L., Surif, J. B., & Seng, C. H. (2014). Individual versus group argumentation: Student’s performance in a Malaysian context. International Education Studies, 7(7), 109-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n7p109

Ishikawa, S. S. (2009). The ICNALE and Sophisticated Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis of Asian Learners of Engish. Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World, 3(April), 91–118. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shinichiro-Ishikawa-2/publication/285651859_The_ICNALE_and_sophisticated_contrastive_interlanguage_analysis_of_Asian_learners_of_English/links/57221f5808ae262228a5cb58/The-ICNALE-and-sophisticated-contrastive-interlang

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395

Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200707

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.76.1.59-92

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035

Qin, J. (2013). Applying Toulmin model in teaching L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 21-29. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jltl/issue/22505/240598

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.2010.06.012

Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(2), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176

Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009

Siegel, H. (1995). Why Should Educators Care about Argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v17i2.2405

Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. A. (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.2014.11.006

Utomo, Y. S., Ashadi, & Sarwanto. (2019). Argumentation Skills Profile on 8th Grade Students using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern on Controversial Topic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1233(1), 1 -9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1233/1/012095

Tsemach, E., & Zohar, A. (2021). The intersection of gender and culture in argumentative writing. International Journal of Science Education, 43(6), 969-990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1894499

Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17, 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026334218681

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2024-02-23