Applying the Toulmin Model in Teaching L2 Argumentative Writing

Alagözlü, N. (2007). Critical thinking and voice in EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal, 9 (3), 118-136. Alagözlü, N., & Süzer, S. (2010). Language and cognition: Is critical thinking a myth in Turkish educational system? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 782-786.
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Latham, A. S., & Gentile, C. A. (1994). NAEP 1992: Writing report card. U.S. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 9, 229-241.
Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written Communication, 1, 247–280.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Enginarlar, H. (1990). A contrastive analysis of writing in Turkish and English of Turkish high school students. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University.
Erdogan, S. (2003). Learner training via course books and teacher autonomy: A case of need. Retrieved July 7, 2013 from http://lc.ust.hk/~ailasc/newsletters/onlinepaper/sultan.htm
Erjem, Y., & Çağlayandereli, M. (2006). Televizyon ve gençlik: Yerli dizilerin gençlerin model alma davranışı üzerindeki etkisi. C. Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 30 (1), 15-30.
Feak, C., & Dobson, B. (1996). Building on the impromptu: A source-based academic writing assessment. College ESL, 6, 73-84.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Hinkel, E. (1994). Native and nonnative speakers’ pragmatic interpretations of English texts. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 353-376.
McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62-76.
Nussbaum, E.M. & Kardash, C.A.M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157-169.
Oktar, L. (1991). Contrastive analysis of specific rhetorical relations in English and Turkish expository paragraph writing. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Izmir, Turkey: Ege University.
Purves, A.C. (1988). “Introduction.” In Purves, A. (ed) Writing across Languages and Cultures: Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric (pp. 9-21). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Qin, J. (2011). How Turkish university EFL students tackle response papers. Paper presented at the 15th International INGED ELT Conference “Taking It to the Limits” at Hacettepe University. Ankara: Turkey.
Qin, J. & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 444-456.
Sert, N. (2006) EFL student teachers' learning autonomy. Asian EFL Journal, 8(2). Retrieved July 7, 2013 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uysal, H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer inL1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 183-207.
Uysal, H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural influences and transfer isses. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 133-159.
Varghese, S.A. & Abraham, S. A. (1998). Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 287-306.
Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49-83.
29
Qin, J., The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2013–2, 21-29
29
Appendix A
A holistic Scoring Rubric for English Argumentative Papers
Scale 5: An excellent persuasive argument. The paper states a clear point of view and gives good and sufficient reasons to support it. The reasons are clearly explained and well-elaborated by using convincing information/examples. The paper may present reasonable opposing view(s) and also refute the opposing view(s) appropriately,
though they are not required. The paper is well-organized and sequenced. It demonstrates effective word choice and contains few or no grammar/mechanical errors.
Scale 4: A reasonably good and persuasive argument. The paper states a reasonably clear point of view and gives generally plausible reasons to support it. The reasons are explained and elaborated to some extent, though not enough. There may be one or two inconsistencies or pieces of irrelevant information. The paper may present some opposing point of view(s), but may fail to refute them or the refutation may be ineffective. The paper is generally well-organized and flows well, and shows evidence of effective word choice overall. There might be some grammar/mechanical
errors, but they do not impede overall communication.
Scale 3: A clearly recognizable argument but limited in effectiveness. The paper states a point of view and gives one or two good reasons to support it. The reasons are not explained or supported in a fully coherent way. The reasons may be of limited plausibility and some inconsistencies exist. The organization is not well-developed, and ideas could be better sequenced. There might be some major problems in word choice; a noticeable number of grammar/mechanical errors occur.
Scale 2: A minimally acceptable argument paper, though not persuasive. The paper states a point of view but only one good reason is provided to support the point of view; or the reasons given are unrelated to or inconsistent with the point of view; or the reasons are incoherent. The organization is weak and ideas are not sequenced well. The paper demonstrates limited control of written language. There are numerous word choice, grammar and mechanical errors, and communication is impeded by these errors.
Scale 1: An ineffective argument with major gaps in reasoning. The paper states some sort of a point of view, but it is vague or general. No reasons are provided for the point of view; or the reasons given are unrelated to or inconsistent with the point of view. Most of the content of the paper is not relevant to the task. The paper is not properly organized, and it just contains piece meals of list of phrases or sentences with no coherence. There are so many word choice, grammar and mechanical errors that communication is severely impeded by these errors.