A CASE STUDY OF ARGUMENT PATTERNS IN JAPAN AND KOREAN EFL LEARNERS’ ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
(1) Applied Linguitics Study Program of UNIKA Atma Jaya Indonesia, Indonesia
(2) Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Tridinanti, Indonesia
(3) STIK Bina Husada
(*) Corresponding Author
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.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
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
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24127/pj.v13i1.8792
Refbacks
Copyright (c) 2024 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Published by Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro
Scientific Publication Unit (UPI)
Gd. HI, Lt1 Kampus 1 Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro
Jl. Ki Hajar Dewantara 116 A
Kota Metro Lampung 34145 Indonesia
Email : help.upi@ummetro.ac.id
Phone : +62-725-42445
Fax : +62-725-42454
Mobile : +62-8570914-1060
Certificate of Accreditation (Volume 11 No 1, 2022-Volume 15 No 2, 2026
