Write a Strong Counterclaim/claim Statement for Upton Sinclair's Implied Thesis

This 8-year longitudinal case study of Fabiola, a Spanish-English bilingual, investigated her argumentative writing development, focusing on her use of evidence to support and develop arguments over time from high school through university. Data sources included 36 writing samples. Texts across grade levels and course types were analyzed to determine changes in evidential types (quotations and paraphrases), evidential functions, and reporting verbs used to introduce evidence. Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify Fabiola's changing perspectives on use of evidence in argumentative writing. Evidentials were found to vary according to course type, but more dramatic changes (in type, function, and range of reporting verbs used) were found over time as language proficiency and writing expertise developed, providing longitudinal support for other studies that have examined writers at only one point in time.

Figures - uploaded by Amanda K. Kibler

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Amanda K. Kibler

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

Kibler, A., & Hardigree, C. (2017). Using evidence in L2 argumentative writing: A

longitudinal case study across high school and college. Language Learning, 67(1), 75-109.

DOI: 10.1111/lang.12198.

Using Evidence in L2 Argumentative Writing: A Longitudinal Case Study Across High

School and University

Amanda K. Kibler and Christine Hardigree

University of Virginia

Abstract

This 8-year longitudinal case study of Fabiola, a Spanish-English bilingual, investigated her

argumentative writing development, focusing on her use of evidence to support and develop

arguments over time from high school through university. Data sources included 36 writing

samples. Texts across grade levels and course types were analyzed to determine changes in

evidential types (quotations and paraphrases), evidential functions, and reporting verbs used to

introduce evidence. Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify Fabiola's changing

perspectives on use of evidence in argumentative writing. Evidentials were found to vary

according to course type, but more dramatic changes (in type, function, and range of reporting

verbs used) were found over time as L2 proficiency and writing expertise developed, providing

longitudinal support for other studies that have examined writers at only one point in time.

Keywords second language writing; evidence; argumentation; adolescent; English language

learner; bilingual; longitudinal

Author Note

We would like to acknowledge Fabiola for her participation, cooperation, and member checking,

without which this research would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the

editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amanda K. Kibler, University of

Virginia, Curry School of Education, Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special

Education, 417 Emmet Street South, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904, United States. E-mail:

akk2v@virginia.edu

Introduction

Students from non-English-background homes comprise an ever-growing proportion of the

overall US school population—as they do in many English-dominant countries worldwide—and

academic writing is often a unique challenge for them in that it serves as a gatekeeper to

advanced secondary (Valdés, 2004) and tertiary (Roberge, Siegal, & Harklau, 2009) coursework.

Institutions and educators value some types of academic writing over others in formal school

settings, and argumentative writing is preeminent among valued genres (Rapanta, Garcia-Mila,

& Gilabert, 2013). As Mitchell (2000) has contended, the ability to write effective arguments is

the "defining characteristic of a good student at the undergraduate level" (p. 146). Such concerns

have now also assumed greater importance at the secondary level in the US, with an increased

focus on argumentation in the recently adopted Common Core State Standards Initiative and

Next Generation Science Standards.

One key element of argumentative writing is the ability to draw upon evidence to support

an argument, a practice that itself requires sophisticated reading and writing processes (Polio &

Shi, 2012; Shaw & Pecorari, 2013). Little is known, however, about how language-minoritized

L2 writers1 develop argumentation skills over time, especially those who are academically and

socially successful in higher education. Because writing is key to many language learners'

success at the university level, a better understanding of writing development for this population

is highly relevant to researchers interested in language learning more generally.

This eight-year case study of Fabiola, a Spanish-English bilingual student who began

acquiring English in school upon her arrival to the US at age 15, investigated changes in her

argumentative writing from Grade 9 in high school through her four years in university,2

focusing on how her use of evidence to support arguments developed over time and across

settings in terms of evidential type (e.g., quotation or paraphrase), function (e.g., rhetorical

purpose in the argument), and reporting verbs used. We examined all three elements through

analysis of Fabiola's texts and interviews in which she discussed them.

Argumentative Writing

Conceptualizations of argumentative writing in current scholarship have been quite varied.

Hillocks (2011), for example, defined argumentative writing as including logical appeals, claims,

evidence, backing, and rebuttals, drawing from Toulmin's (2001) model. From a systemic

functional perspective, however, the genre that is characterized by presenting a thesis and

supporting it with arguments and evidence has been classified not as argument per se but as

exposition, an advanced analytical genre requiring generalization, classification, and

categorization through specific linguistic features (Schleppegrell, 2004).

Some scholars reject the notion that any stable definition for argument can be established

because of the varied contexts in which argumentation is used. Gitrow (2000) explained, "What

matters is differences amongst the disciplines, rather than conformity to an ideal we might call

argument" (p. 139). And although general discourse patterns can characterize argument in

specific disciplines, school-based writing tasks rarely conform to prototypical notions of

argument, instead requiring students to write hybrid forms combining features from multiple

genres (Schleppegrell, 2004). In this sense, "writing and disciplinarity [in academic settings] are

locally situated, extensively mediated, deeply laminated, and highly heterogeneous" (Prior, 1998,

p. 275), defying singular notions of argument even within specific disciplinary settings. As a

result, students must often learn the "ground rules of a number of different games" (Andrews,

2000, p. 11) in order to develop expertise in argumentative writing. These ground rules are often

taught only implicitly: Experienced writers—including teachers—frequently view expectations

for student writing as common sense rather than teachable writing practices (Lea & Street, 1999).

Such challenges exist for all students but are particularly salient for language-minoritized L2

writers who may be less familiar with argumentative written genres (see Kibler, 2011a, 2011b).

Over time students learn to recontextualize ways they engage in argumentation,

considering audiences, contexts, and feedback received (Newell, Beach, Smith, & VanDerHeide,

2011). As Rogers (2009) explained, longitudinal writing development must be seen as highly

contextual, multidimensional, and nonlinear. In relation to argumentation specifically, Hirvela

(2013) noted that high-school students may become versed in supporting theses with evidence,

but other aspects of academic writing can be elusive. Specifically, "knowing how to use the

specialised language and discourse features of specific disciplinary fields in rhetorically

appropriate and authoritative ways eludes many students, especially those entering their first year

of university study" (Thompson, Morton, & Storch, 2013, p. 101; see also Aull & Lancaster,

2014). Although first-year writing courses are implemented in many undergraduate programs to

introduce students to academic writing, such courses have at times been criticized for teaching

decontextualized writing rather than preparing students for discipline- and genre-specific writing

(Wardle, 2009).

Evidentiary Claims

A key element of any argumentative text—and what distinguishes it in many ways from other

written genres—is the evidence that is used to establish or further a given argument. Hyland

(2005) defined evidentials as features that "refer to information from other texts," "establish an

authorial command of the subject," and that may "involve hearsay or attribution to a reliable

source" (p. 51). At the same time as they support arguments, evidentials can also be used to

fulfill disciplinary-specific (Hyland, 2000) and personal (Li, 2013) goals while establishing

writers' authority (Le, 2004).3

As Hirvela and his colleagues argued (Hirvela, 2004; Hirvela & Du, 2013), reading and

writing are both integral to making evidentiary claims, thus placing significant literacy demands

on writers because they must understand and draw from others' texts in order to create their own.

Yet language proficiency and literacy skills alone may not be sufficient. Davis' (2013) case

studies of three graduate student L2 writers' progress in using sources appropriately suggested

disciplinary knowledge was also important in students' use of evidence.

Evidential Types

Writers' use of evidence can take several forms, including direct quotations (Petrić, 2012),

paraphrases (Keck, 2014), nonintegral citations4 (Swales, 1990), or general allusions to bodies of

knowledge. Although recent research by Swales (2014) has suggested that high-scoring essays

may be typified by a variety of citation practices, some evidential type patterns have been tied to

L2 writer expertise. Taguchi, Crawford, and Wetzel (2013) found higher-rated English essays

from incoming international university students explicitly referenced source texts and authors

more frequently than did lower-rated ones. Examining English-language masters theses in gender

studies at a Central European university, Petrić found higher-rated theses included more direct

quotations, specifically those that were shorter in length and integrated into writers' texts at the

clausal level. Mansourizadeh and Ahmad (2011) compared Malaysian university students'

English writing with chemical engineering articles published in English by L2 writers. Similar to

Petrić 's findings, student L2 writers more often used citations in isolation, while professional L2

writers strategically employed citations to synthesize and justify findings.

At the same time, other research suggests that paraphrasing in particular requires

relatively advanced L2 reading and writing competencies as well as knowledge of cultural and

institutional norms for paraphrasing (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Hirvela & Du, 2013 Polio

& Shi, 2012; Shi, 2012). Keck (2014) examined samples of first (L1) and second language (L2)

university students enrolled in English writing courses and found that students with fewer years

of university coursework, regardless of language background, relied more on verbatim wordings

or close paraphrases of primary sources than did more advanced writers.

Disciplinary differences in evidential type have also been found. Academic texts in hard

sciences, for example, have been shown to include fewer quotations or explicit references to

authors than those in the humanities (Hyland, 2000; Tse & Hyland, 2006). Such trends may

indicate disciplinary differences regarding the importance of capturing authors' language or

ideas (Bazerman, 1994) and a preference for giving prominence to research, rather than

researchers, in hard sciences (Hyland, 1999). However, Petrić and Harwood (2013) have

suggested that even within the same discipline the frequency and function of citations can shift

according to genre- and task-related demands. Students may also attend to disciplinary demands

to varying degrees. Pecorari (2006) examined graduate L2 English students' writing and found

that their citations of evidence did not necessarily align with disciplinary norms. Differences

included frequency of secondary-source references (instead of primary sources), frequency of

quotations, and manner of quotation attribution.

Evidential Functions

Research has explored not only the types of evidentials that writers use but also the range of

functions evidentials fulfill in argumentative writing. Although source attribution is a major

function of evidentials (Charles, 2006; Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011; Petrić , 2007; Petrić &

Harwood, 2013), studies have also shown a variety of more nuanced evidential functions in

argumentative writing. In addition to asserting or supporting a claim (Borg, 2000;

Mansourizadeh & Ahmad; Petrić & Harwood), evidentials are also used to give background on a

topic (Borg), justify its relevance (Mansourizadeh & Ahmad), define terms (Borg), or apply

concepts from source texts (Petrić & Harwood). Further, they allow authors to offer

counterclaims, construct an authorial persona (Barton, 1993), and show agreement or

disagreement with the source text (Petrić & Harwood). Other functions include illustrating an

author's position on a given idea or topic (Petrić & Harwood), exhorting a specific author

through rhetorical means such as epigrams (Borg), or directly quoting to capture an author's

original expression (Petrić, 2012).

Other common functions of evidentials relate to relationships among texts. These

evidentials are used to review or engage the relevant literature by showing consensus within the

research base, situating an argument, acknowledging alternative viewpoints and uncertainty,

creating collegial support by building upon others' work (Charles, 2006), and "establishing links

between sources," or comparing findings with an existing research base (Mansourizadeh &

Ahmad, 2011, p. 154, following Petrić, 2007). Similar to findings related to evidential type,

differences in function have been linked to writers' overall exposure to writing in a field or

discipline. Mansourizadeh and Ahmad found that novice graduate-student L2 writers used

evidentials for attribution, while L2 writers who were published academics in the same discipline

used citations strategically to support and justify claims.

Reporting Verbs

Reporting verbs are key linguistic resources through which evidence is introduced into texts (e.g.,

"The author suggests…"), and such verbs can serve multiple rhetorical purposes in doing so.

Studying how authors in medical journals referenced previous literature, Thomas and Hawes

(1994) found three reporting-verb categories: discourse verbs (state, suggest), real-world verbs

describing actions or findings (compare, demonstrate), and cognition verbs (believe, think).

Further, they found writers' verb choices aligned with rhetorical function, such that, for example,

discourse verbs were used to report generalized conclusions, but real-world verbs were used to

report specific results and findings. Regarding student writing, Lancaster's (2012) analysis of a

university-level corpus aligned with Swales' (2014) finding that reporting-verb usage differed

among students. Specifically, lower-rated essays in Lancaster's study used more verbs "in which

the grammatical subject of the clause is a person [e.g., Foucault argues instead of Foucault's

argument…] and/or the stance toward the proposition is neutral or not clear" (p. 212). Examining

graduate-level writing, Charles (2006) analyzed theses from two disciplines, finding genre- and

discipline-related overlap and variation in reporting verb usage. One commonality, however, was

that writers used reporting verbs to strategically manage face-threatening commentary about

professional researchers through less evaluative choices (e.g., argue) that would suggest

authorial agency to avoid criticism, rather than undeveloped skill or uncommitted stance.

The Current Study

Evidential types, functions, and reporting verbs have yet to be investigated from a longitudinal

perspective in either L1 or L2 writing, and this study was designed to examine the ways in which

a successful L2 writer's use of evidence in argumentative writing developed over time and in

response to course types and grade-level contexts. We were particularly interested to see how

existing evidential typologies might apply to an adolescent and beginning L2 writer and what

types of development could be detected over an eight-year time period. With such knowledge, it

is possible to better understand how language-minoritized L2 writers can develop advanced L2

proficiency while engaging in the increasingly sophisticated argumentation required for

university coursework.

This longitudinal case study focused on one of five L2 writers from a larger qualitative

study that began when students started high school and continued four years after their

graduation from high school. All participants spoke Spanish as a home language and were at

beginning or intermediate English-writing proficiency when they entered high school according

to Grade 9 assessments (see Kibler, 2009). Fabiola became this study's focal case because she

was the only student consistently attending university classes after graduation. She also provided

an example of a successful language-minoritized L2 writer in a higher educational setting.

As a naturalistic case study (Harklau, 2001), this analysis focused on understanding daily

writing practices rather than creating an experimental environment for analyzing writing.

Findings provide insights into both linguistic and sociocultural considerations related to language

development, which Duff (2014) noted is rare in case-study research, and its longitudinal nature

offers analytical depth particularly valuable in literacy research (Compton-Lilly, 2007).

Method

Participant

Fabiola was born in the city of South Sierra in northern California but moved to Mexico before

starting school. There she completed nine years of schooling (through secundaria) but had no

English instruction. At 15, she returned from Mexico and enrolled mid-year in South Sierra High

School's Grade 9, with state assessments labeling her English as beginning, the lowest of five

proficiency levels. In her first year, she took a bilingual humanities course, an ESL course, and

untracked mainstream English-medium classes in other subjects. After Grade 9, except for one

Grade 10 ESL course, Fabiola took mainstream courses only. The writing instruction she

received varied by instructor but involved fairly limited direct teaching of argumentative writing.

However, Fabiola excelled academically at South Sierra High School, earning a 3.84 (of 4.0)

grade point average (GPA), and received a full scholarship to a prestigious state university. She

entered West Coast University, declared a gender and women's studies major during her second

year, and graduated after four years of university study with this major and a minor in legal

studies.

For the university courses in which she completed academic writing, such assignments

were often the primary (if not sole) means of assessment for the course. Although detailed

feedback and grades were not available for each of Fabiola's writing assignments, semester

grades for university courses in which she undertook argumentative writing offered a proxy of

her success. She earned a 3.45 (out of 4.0) GPA in these courses, well above her overall GPA of

2.9 for all coursework completed (Fabiola's high school and university transcripts are

reproduced in Appendix S1 in the Supporting Information online).

Fabiola reported being drawn to the freedom given for argumentative writing in her

gender and women's study major, in contrast to her first-year university writing courses:

For my [university] writing classes, they were giving us a specific way to write things. Or

they will tell us to write it about a specific book or specific argument, and that had to be

the argument the teacher was thinking about, otherwise it was wrong. I feel like in

[gender and women's studies] there's no right answer… I think that's one of the things

that's helped me a lot to develop my writing. (Interview, 10/16/2011)

Fabiola explained that even when the instructors in her major disagreed with her, they approved

of her arguments if she included adequate evidence. Fabiola also noted that in her university

studies, regardless of discipline, "99 percent of the time they told us, you have to use this number

of sources or this specific source or within these sources" for argumentative writing assignments

(Interview, 4/11/2014).

In high school, Fabiola described enjoying the argumentative writing tasks for which she

had to do research to find evidence. For example, when asked what she most enjoyed about a

Grade 12 assignment on democracy in global contexts, she explained, "¿Qué me gustaba más?

Me gustaba quizás las evidencias, cómo escoger las evidencias/What did I like most? Probably I

liked the evidence, how to choose the evidence" (Interview, 6/3/2010). Fabiola did not, however,

describe how or why she evaluated or incorporated this evidence. In university, she showed

increasing understanding of evidentials' use in argumentative writing. In an interview during her

first year of university, she commented on needing to improve her use of evidence: reading aloud

her first-semester university writing instructor's feedback on an essay about legal challenges to

GPS technology, she said, "'So you suggest that GPS surveillance does not constitute a search,

yet you do not identify anyone in the article we read.' Yeah, I don't know if I referred to anyone"

(Interview, 9/28/2010). In the following years, however, Fabiola began commenting on her

evidential use in more positive and complex terms, describing a strength of a second-year

assignment as being how she had introduced her evidence, saying that she was proud of "cómo la

introduje… [s]iento que en este essay particularmente fluí más/how I introduced it… I feel that

in this essay especially, I flowed more" (Interview, 6/29/2011). In a nod to the intertextuality that

evidential use demands, during university Fabiola increasingly described reading strategically to

find evidence for developing arguments: "So once I have an idea about what quotation I want to

use, I just go back and get it instead of just waiting or trying to look specifically for a quotation

[once I start writing]… That way I know a lot of my options" (Interview, 6/21/2012).

Data Collection

Data included school-based argumentative writing samples across academic years and semi-

structured interviews about these texts conducted two to three times annually for six of the eight

years (Table 1). The primary dataset included a corpus of 36 writing samples and 16 semi-

structured interview transcripts as well as one member-checking interview conducted after a

draft of this article was completed. Contextualizing the study but not included as primary data for

this analysis were high-school classroom observations and periodic emails between Fabiola and

the first author.

TABLE 1

Writing samples were collected across eight grades (Grades 9 through 16) and six types

of courses: (a) high-school humanities courses, which combined English and history5; (b)

university writing courses; (c) university gender and women's studies courses; (d) university

cultural studies courses; (e) university philosophy courses, and (f) university legal studies

courses6 (for a complete description of the corpus, see Appendix S2 in the Supporting

Information online). Argumentative texts were defined according to Hillocks (2011) as those

including logical appeals, claims, evidence, backing, and rebuttals, although not all features

needed to be present to be considered an argumentative text. At a minimum, texts included in the

analysis featured a primary argument and claims with supporting evidence. Most texts were

multiple-draft assignments, but only final drafts were included in the corpus. Argumentative

writing using evidence appeared in all grades except Grade 10, in which no texts of this type

were assigned or written. A list of representative argumentative writing tasks at each grade level

can be found in Appendix S3 in the Supporting Information online.

Data Analysis

All texts were categorized by grade level7 and course type and then coded for evidentials using

DedooseTM software. Excerpts containing evidentials were then pattern-coded for type, function,

and reporting verbs used, and interview transcripts were analyzed for Fabiola's descriptions of

her evidential use. Each process is detailed below.

To compare argumentative features of the corpus despite varying lengths and numbers of

texts per grade level and course type, we divided texts into clauses (Smolkin, McTigue, Donovan,

& Coleman, 2009) and coded texts for evidentials. We reviewed texts showing evidential

frequencies inconsistent with the overall corpus and corrected any coding errors. Using 20% of

the corpus, we established interrater agreement to be 86.3% for identification of evidentials. The

remaining texts were then divided between the raters and coded separately. We calculated

additional descriptive information, including total word count, means and standard deviations for

text length, and frequency of evidentials (see Table 2).

Each evidential excerpt was coded to include the quotation or paraphrase with directly

relevant introductory material necessary for clarity or to identify the source, any reporting verbs,

and any explicit citations of texts and/or page numbers, as in the following example:

De Beauvior argues that [introductory material and reporting verb] "females exist in the

human species" [quotation] (11) [citation-page number]. (T20, gender and women's

studies, Grade 14)

Information placed after an excerpt represented a text's corpus number (e.g., T20), course type

(e.g., gender and women's studies), and when not clear from the context, grade level (e.g., Grade

g14). Throughout this article, Fabiola's writing is presented verbatim from the corpus:

unconventional usage and punctuation are not marked. For clarity's sake, we include additional

phrasing surrounding coded excerpts.

Evidential Types

We then double-coded all evidentials for type, resolving any coding disagreements through

discussion. Based on both inductive analysis and reference to existing research, we found three

types of evidentials in our corpus:

• Unincorporated quotations: Similar to Petri ć's (2012) direct-quotations definition, these are

verbatim source excerpts. However, they are not incorporated within a sentence and do not

include explicit reference to the author or text within the sentence in which evidence is used,

other than parenthetically, as in "(Alvarez, 21-21)," illustrated in this example:

The nuns in Inmaculada concepcion get money from Trujillo, when he wanted met hina

hovaton. "At first the sisters were frightened. But then they started receiving gifts

too"(Alvarez, 21-22). When the nuns get money from Trujillo se conformaon and they

started to trust in him. (T1, high-school humanities, Grade 9)8

• Incorporated quotations: These are also verbatim source excerpts, but they are incorporated

within a sentence, sometimes involving description of the author or text and/or a paraphrase

or other writing that contextualizes the quotation,9 as shown in these examples:!

Beynon and Dunkerley agree that "multinational corporations control the global market

and exploit cheap labor and resources wherever they can be located" (2) (T28, gender and

women's studies, Grade 15)

According to the text, "Irish immigrant were preferred for such jobs, and working 'in

service' was the most common occupation for Irish American women at that time"

(Thomas and Dorothy Hoobler, 64). (T5, high-school humanities, Grade 11)

• Paraphrases: Evidence is paraphrased from texts and used to support arguments by "making

changes to lexis and syntactic structure" (Keck, 2014, p. 4). Paraphrases do not include

quotations (as indicated by quotation marks). For visual and multimedia sources like ads or

films, descriptions of images or actions are also considered paraphrases. Because we did not

read (or view) each source referenced in corpus texts, we were unable to determine if

paraphrases were actually unattributed uses of sources; this remains an area for investigation.

Paraphrasing is shown in the following example:

Lupton explicates that advertisements want to encourage women to buy products not only

because they are going to be helpful but because they secure their family health. (T15,

university writing, Grade 13)

Additional excerpts did not fit any of these categories: They simply identified the source to be

used as evidence (see third function below) but did not use quotations or paraphrase. Because

these instances are important to a discussion of evidential function but are less relevant to an

analysis of evidential type, they were coded only for the former.

Evidential Functions

We then double-coded all evidentials for function, resolving any coding disagreements through

discussion. Based on both inductive analysis and reference to the literature, we found that

Fabiola employed evidence for the following purposes, which were not mutually exclusive:

• To assert or support a claim: either make a claim or support a previously-stated claim (Borg,

2000; Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011; Petrić & Harwood, 2013), as in:

While some religions consider talking about the topic other religious "traditions have

apparently always viewed same-sex relations as utterly sinful and against the will of God"

(ix preface). (T18, cultural studies, Grade 14)

• To illustrate position of an author: explicitly identify an author's key position or argument, or

as Charles (2006) notes, "present the relative positions of other researchers" (p. 322; see also

Petrić & Harwood, 2013), as in:

Rodriguez main argument is: "Consider how differently imagined peripheries disrupt and

engage sites of belonging and displacement for diverse readers in the attempt of

translation." (T31, gender and women's studies, Grade 15)

• To introduce source texts: describe or identify sources to be used as evidence, as shown in

this example:

Primary sources used in this essay include quotes from a book named "The Irish

American Family Album" from Thomas and Dorothy Hobbler. (T5, high-school

humanities, Grade 11)

• To establish links between texts: explicitly describe one author commenting upon or citing

another (Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011, following Petrić, 2007), or draw

comparisons/contrasts between texts, as in:

While Lopez argues that Law and social opinion creates race, I think he is missing the

point that the US has accommodated race according to the US' needs, as Laura Gomez

has argued. (T33, legal studies, Grade 16)

• To critique a claim: critique evidence in order to support a counterclaim (Barton, 1993; Petri ć

& Harwood, 2013), as illustrated here:

The privatization of property, which Reich proposes, brought inequality to the societies

that adopted the system; people started to work extra to gain property and with it a high

status in society. (T32, legal studies, Grade 15)

• To give background: provide evidence not directly related to a claim but show knowledge of

the topic necessary to make a subsequent claim (Borg, 2000), as in:

In 1866, for the first time, Dr. John Langdon Down a British physician described a

syndrome called "Mongolism," which later was named after him (Down syndrome).

(T17, university writing, Grade 13)

We also found isolated instances of evidence being used to show consensus among sources

(Charles, 2006), build on others' work (Charles, 2006), problematize a topic (as Barton, 1993,

found, though not for evidentials specifically), provide a definition (Borg, 2000), explicitly

provide an example (see Petrić's notion of exemplification, 2007), or set up an argumentative

claim. Because these functions appeared less than once per 2,000 words in the corpus, however,

they were not explored in more detail.!

Reporting Verbs

Reporting verbs, which occur alongside incorporated quotations and paraphrases, were double-

coded by name (e.g., ask, argue). Reporting verbs were then grouped, so different forms of one

base word were not counted separately. For example, argue and argued are two tokens of the

verb type argue, rather than single instances of unique verbs.

Interview Analysis

Analysis proceeded inductively and deductively (Marshall & Rossman, 2011), using as start

codes evidential type, evidential function, and reporting verbs (according to definitions provided

above) and open coding for more specific information related to each (see codes and subcodes,

along with definitions and examples, in Appendix S4 in the Supporting Information online).

Interview responses relevant to evidential type, evidential function, and reporting verbs were

integrated into the relevant findings section. More general insights into evidence and

argumentative writing that did not relate specifically to type, function, or reporting verbs were

included in the participant section above.

Researcher-as-Instrument

The first author met Fabiola when she began high school, and ongoing communication with her

across settings—engaging in formal interviews and observations, having personal conversations

(often in Spanish), and assisting with her writing throughout high school and university—helped

her to earn Fabiola's trust and provided insight into her writing experiences over time. Although

it can be argued that the author influenced Fabiola's writing, the activities they engaged in did

not disproportionately influence this analysis: the author was but one of several individuals

Fabiola solicited for feedback over time and never focused explicitly on evidential types,

evidential functions, or reporting verbs, or discussed them as such with Fabiola during data

collection. Both authors' shared interests in L2 writing have led them to examine student texts

and perspectives, privileging student voice, as Harklau (1999, 2001) has done with similar

populations.

Findings

Table 2 summarizes Fabiola's writing by course type and grade level for word count, mean and

standard deviation for text length, and evidential frequency. Fabiola wrote most for her gender

and women's studies major, and mean text length for high-school humanities and philosophy

texts were shorter than those in other course types. An overlapping longitudinal trend is also

somewhat apparent, with high school texts notably shorter than university texts, with the

exception of Grade 11. At the same time, there was a wide range of text length within most

course types and grade levels, as can be seen in standard deviations listed in the table. In relation

to evidentials specifically, they were relatively less common in high school humanities,

university writing, and philosophy than in gender and women's studies, cultural studies, and

legal studies. Considering grade level, there was notable variation in evidential frequency, with

relatively fewer in Grades 9–13, suggesting a moderate but nonlinear increase over time.

However, as scholars such as Aull and Lancaster (2014) and Uccelli, Dobbs, and Scott (2013)

have noted, the quality and sophistication of evidentials, rather than their frequency,

distinguishes writers with greater expertise. As a result, a closer examination of type, function,

and reporting verb patterns within evidentials revealed complex trends, particularly over time.

TABLE 2

Evidential Types

Table 3 indicates that, across course types and grade levels, incorporated quotations (e.g.,

quotations plus contextualizing information) were the most prominent evidential type, but other

patterns are visible as well. For example, in high-school humanities, Fabiola almost exclusively

used unincorporated quotations, but in university, paraphrasing (university writing, philosophy)

and incorporated quotations (gender and women's studies, cultural studies, and legal studies)

were most common. Grade level trends were most consistent, with unincorporated quotations

most frequent throughout Grades 9–12 and incorporated quotations most common throughout

university. Grade 13, in which paraphrasing was most common, was an exception to this trend,

but it appeared to be directly related to assignment requirements. In texts written for Grade 13

(university writing), the advertisements and films that Fabiola was required to use as sources in

multiple texts did not lend themselves as easily to quotations. In philosophy texts written in

Grade 13, writing prompts required students to describe philosophers' positions in students' own

words.

TABLE 3

Qualitative examples, particularly across years, most clearly demonstrate the nature of

these differences. In Grade 9, Fabiola used only unincorporated quotations. For example, in an

essay about the novel In the Time of Butterflies (1994), she wr ote :

Wher the Mirabal's family get out to the party they broke the law. "He has recived orders

to send Papa down to the capital for questioning" (Alvarez, 103). (T1, high school

humanities)

In this excerpt, Fabiola employed evidence from the novel to support her position, in that the

quotation was used to show that the consequence of the family's law-breaking (in going to an

unauthorized party) was her father's capture by the police for questioning. Fabiola did not,

however, otherwise incorporate the evidence into the text to explain how her quotation supported

her position or to provide information about the author or source text itself outside of the

parenthetical citation. In Grade 11, however, she began employing incorporated quotations, as

seen in an essay about Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1906):

Sinclare wrote about how "Set forth the breaking of human hearts by a system which

exploits the labor of men and women for profit" (Sinclair notes vii). (T6, high school

humanities)!

In this instance, the tag "Sinclare wrote about how" allowed Fabiola to identify the author of the

evidence, using the reporting verb wrote but otherwise not contextualizing the author or

quotation. By Grade 12, Fabiola continued to use incorporated quotations in this manner but also

added a new evidential type to her writing—paraphrasing. Just a single instance of this pattern

appeared in the corpus that year. In a text about the US's involvement in World War I, rather

than directly quoting from a source, she paraphrased information about the Philippines'

relationship with the US:

These was the reaction from the Philippines against U.S. and they fought against U.S for

about 58 years. (T7, high school humanities)

In this way, Fabiola used this paraphrased information to make a larger claim later in the paper

about American imperialism and challenges to it.

Although Fabiola was already using all three types of evidentials by Grade 12,

development continued in university, where she began to rely primarily upon incorporated

quotations, and to a lesser extent, paraphrases. The following example of an incorporated

quotation from Grade 13 demonstrated that Fabiola could not only marshal and incorporate

evidence supporting her claim but also provide background through an introduction and

comment on logical links between the evidence and her claim:

The surname of a person says a lot about their forefathers and Waters gives an example in

her article, "His knowledge about his ancestries was uncertain in many spots and he used

the surname of the relatives he knew about to fill in the gaps." This suggests that there are

different ways in which people can find out about their ancestries and one example is

using their last name. (T12, university writing)

Such a pattern was notably different from her use of incorporated quotations in Grade 11, in

which the introduction to the quotation simply identified the author.

Similar patterns continued in Grade 14, and by Grade 15, Fabiola not only provided

nuanced analysis of a single text through incorporated quotations, she also integrated two types

of evidentials (quotations and paraphrases) and compared multiple pieces of evidence, as she did

in a text on homosexuality and religion:

Ahmed's point in describing the word queer and its origin was to explain why the

LGBTQ community chose to use this word to represent them among the members of their

culture, and it also gave them a sense of belonging and at the same time, a sense of pride.

Comparatively, in his essay The Queer Renaissance, McRuer, described queer as "a fluid

designation for identities that 'are shaped and reshaped across differences that interrogate

and disrupts dominant hierarchical understanding'." (443). His definition of queer is also

accepted among the queer community to represent them because it shows a defiant way

of telling everyone, including religious institutions that they accept their sexuality and

most importantly themselves, because even if people see them differently, they are like

any other person who might or might nor want to have a family. (T27, gender and

women's studies)

Grade 16 texts showed similar use of multiple evidential types and intertextual references to

multiple sources but also an increasing ability to use quotations to integrate critiques into her

analysis, as seen in a text about Ian Haney Lopez's book, White by Law (1996):

Lopez quotes Richard Ford who argues that "the maintaining technologies of race are

primarily economic and spatial;" this is one of the many examples that Lopez uses to

prove that Law and social ideas creates race, but he does not analyze it further. (T33,

legal studies)

By using Lopez's citation of another author to both support her claim (that law and society create

race) and critique his presentation of this argument in his book, she was thus able to use

incorporated quotations to manage multiple sources and functions (discussed further below) in

her use of evidence.

Although the predominance of different course types in different years (e.g., university

writing in Grade 13; gender and women's studies in Grade 15) made it difficult to follow

evidential type trends both longitudinally and across disciplines, the data mentioned above

suggest that by her third year of university, Fabiola had developed a wide range of strategies for

incorporating evidence into her arguments, which she employed over time with increasing

sophistication.

When asked in an interview at the end of her final year of university studies about the

instruction she received regarding quotations or paraphrases, Fabiola explained that this topic

was only addressed in her undergraduate university writing classes:

I remember [quotations] are good for helping our readers understand what you're trying

to say and also to just have support from other people so that your readers are saying oh,

she's not just coming up with this argument out of the blue, that someone else is talking

about this, too. They also told me… too much quotation they told me is also not good. I

think in one of my essays in [University Writing 1], I did a lot of quotations and the

professor gave me a comment about that, but I used mostly quotation. (Interview,

4/11/2014)

In relation to incorporated quotations specifically, she explained during her first year of

university:

[In these classes] I also learned that you can write a little bit before that quote. Like, this

man said, "blah, blah, blah." [Before] I thought that it has to start, like, period and then

quote. I also learned new words such as, "this quote suggests." Well, I guess I knew the

word, but I didn't know I could use it in that context. Like, "this quote suggests," "she

comments on"—and yeah, things like that. (Interview, 12/16/10)

In this way, Fabiola's understanding of evidence types in high school, restricted to "period and

then quote," which we defined as unincorporated quotations, was expanded through instruction

in her university writing classes, in which she was exposed to incorporated quotations and

reporting verbs (the latter of which is addressed below).

Paraphrasing was, in contrast, not a topic of instruction, and Fabiola explicitly mentioned

it as a difficulty for her and other L2 writers. In line with Shi's (2012) contention that

paraphrasing requires relatively high levels of comprehension of source texts in order for writers

to summarize it in their own words, she explained:

For people who are just learning English or who it's their second language, it's difficult

to paraphrase because I feel like… I think there are things like that in English that I do

not know, and so what if I misinterpret that? (Interview, 4/11/2014)

Fabiola reported that, as a result, she sometimes avoided paraphrasing in her university writing:

I was [sometimes] just going on the safe side… So that I wouldn't have to paraphrase, I

would introduce my quote and afterwards I will write "I believe she's saying or she's

arguing [this]." (Interview, 4/11/2014)

In this way, Fabiola described using what we call incorporated quotations as a strategy to avoid

paraphrasing and in doing so possibly misinterpreting the texts she was citing as evidence. When

asked if she was ever taught how to paraphrase, she recalled only strategies she developed

herself, including looking for models in her course readings of how writers paraphrase their own

sources (Interview, 04/11/2014). Underscoring the difficulty of paraphrasing, in the final

member-check interview completed after university graduation, she explained, "Even right now,

I don't think I'll be able to—or feel comfortable paraphrasing something. I will do it, but I will

prefer not to" (Interview, 06/12/2015).

Evidential Functions

Across course types and grade levels, Fabiola used evidentials most frequently to assert and

support claims (as shown in Table 3). Two exceptions to this pattern were philosophy, in which

she used evidentials just as frequently to illustrate authors' positions, and legal studies, in which

this latter function was most frequent overall. Other functions, though less common, were also

used. For example, introducing source texts was the second most common function in high

school humanities and university writing, and giving background information was second most

common in cultural studies, in which a research paper was a major component. Establishing links

between authors and critiquing claims were relatively infrequent, but these instances occurred

almost exclusively in gender and women's studies, cultural studies, and legal studies.

Several trends are also notable across grade level. Although the function of asserting and

supporting a claim was most common across all grades, the function of illustrating positions of

authors appeared consistently only after Fabiola had arrived in university. This likely speaks to

both rhetorical skill as well as course expectations to engage in positioning her own argument

relative to those of other authors, which she did throughout university. The introduction of

source texts appeared relatively early, first in Grade 11 when she was explicitly taught to do so

and continued over time, though without increasing consistency. The other three functions

(giving background, establishing links between texts, and critiquing claims) were relatively

infrequent but used exclusively in university.

Fabiola's interview comments focused primarily on the most common evidential function,

asserting or supporting claims. In her first year of university, she voiced doubt about whether or

not she adequately used evidence in her papers to assert or support claims, saying "I don't know

if I referred to anyone" in response to a teacher's critique of her lack of support for an argument

(Interview, 9/28/2010). Later in her university career, however, she described evidence as key to

helping support claims: " La evidencia fue la que realmente me ayudó /The evidence was what

really helped me" (Interview, 6/29/2011). In interviews, Fabiola did not report being taught

about specific functions for evidence beyond the asserting and supporting claims and completing

assignment requirements for source use.

When examining the rhetorical function of evidentials, an important consideration is the

relationships between those functions and evidential types. Were quotations, for example, used

for different evidentiary purposes than were paraphrases? Results are presented in Table 4.

Unincorporated quotations were used for only two functions, giving background and asserting or

supporting a claim. In contrast, incorporated quotations and paraphrases were used for all six

functions, though to varying degrees. Paraphrasing was used more often to illustrate the positions

of authors, perhaps reflecting ways in which this rhetorical function requires writers to

synthesize information into a key position (thus the need for paraphrasing) in ways the other

functions might not. Arguably more sophisticated rhetorical functions like illustrating positions,

giving background information, establishing links between sources, and critiquing claims did not

use unincorporated quotations, which raises the question of what might be lost in terms of

students' argumentation when students lack the sophistication of more deftly incorporating

quotations or paraphrases into their writing.

TABLE 4

When considering evidential type and function together, it was only later in the corpus

(during university) that more complex evidential types (incorporated quotations and paraphrases)

occurred regularly and alongside a greater range of rhetorical functions. Paraphrases in particular

were used for purposes that appeared consistently later in the corpus (illustrating positions of

authors, giving background, establishing links, and critiquing claims). In this way, paraphrasing

in particular might be difficult for students not only because of the literacy comprehension

demands, as Shi (2012) and Fabiola herself noted, but also because of the functions for which

they are used. That is, paraphrases and incorporated quotations require complex literacy skills

needed for understanding and synthesizing source texts as well as the argumentative skills to

effectively employ these evidentials for specific rhetorical purposes within an argument.

Reporting Verbs

The range of reporting verbs used to incorporate evidence varied across course type and grade

level (see Table 3). Of the 82 reporting verbs found in the entire corpus, range was far more

limited in high school humanities courses (just 4.9% of all verbs) than in university (33.4–53.7%

in any given year), and once Fabiola was in university, ranges varied by discipline, with all

course types but philosophy including approximately 30% or more of all verbs. A trend of

gradual growth also applied to grade level, in that Fabiola used less than 5% of all verbs in the

corpus in high school, approximately 35-37% in the first two years of university, and 50% or

more in each of her last two years of university.

In examining the most common reporting verbs across course type and grade level, the

most frequently used verbs were notably consistent over time and across contexts: write, explain,

argue (similar to Charles, 2006). Not in the top three most common but regularly used was

describe. These verbs avoid explicit commentary or stance regarding the quality of the evidence

being presented and are also discourse verbs (Thomas & Hawes, 1994) that make the author the

grammatical subject of the clause. Although Lancaster (2012) found such reporting verb usage

associated with lower-scoring undergraduate writing, examination of these verbs over time and

in context challenges the notion that such verbs are indicators of less sophisticated arguments by

demonstrating notable qualitative differences and growing sophistication in their use.

In the case of write, one of the first reporting verbs Fabiola used, its initial appearance in

Grade 11 simply identified the author of the quotation:

Sinclare wrote about how "Set forth the breaking of human hearts by a system which

exploits the labor of men and women for profit" (Sinclair notes vii). (T6, high school

humanities)

In Grade 13, the same verb was used to identify the author, but an appositive phrase was also

employed to provide information about the author's background and ideological positioning

relevant to the quotation, all accomplished with more normative citation and punctuation

conventions:

Pettman, founder of the International Feminist Journal of Politics, writes: "[y]et the

maternal is also claimed by the state, to give… particular civic duties; to give birth to,

bring up, and offer to the state future citizens, soldiers, workers" (167). (T15, university

writing)

Fabiola used the verb somewhat differently in Grades 14 and 15, combining paraphrasing with

incorporated quotations to present evidence for specific argumentative positions:

Many times being part of two cultures is a blessing, but many times can be hard or as

Anzaldua writes you can be "sandwiched between two cultures" (78). (Grade 14, T18,

cultural studies)

Gabriel writes that even though these women have education and are economically stable,

they still portray themselves as what is believed to be the ordinary "Mexican women"

who is going to be loyal to her family, or the "normal housewife" who will do anything

and everything to maintain her family happy and prosperous. (Grade 15, T31, gender and

women's studies)

In Grade 15, Fabiola also employed an embedded use of write to identify an author's citation of

another writer, demonstrating an ability to establish links and negotiate intertextuality in sources:

She quotes the editor of the Alta California newspaper who wrote in 1851: "we want an

emigration of respectable females to California: of rosy-cheeked 'down east' Yankee

girls—of scout 'hoosier' and 'badger' lasses, who shall be wives to our farmers and

mechanics, and mothers to a generation of 'Yankee Californians'" (xi). (T31, gender and

women's studies)

Although Fabiola used write quite rarely in Grade 16, such changes across the first seven years

of the study were notable. And although it was not possible to compare disciplinary differences

alongside these grade-level trends for reasons mentioned previously, the growing complexity of

reporting verb use took place in the context of increasingly sophisticated rhetorical purposes.

Fabiola, however, had a different perspective on her use of reporting verbs. Although she

reported learning a range of reporting verbs in a university writing class in Grade 13 (e.g., "this

quote suggests"), when I shared findings with her in the member-checking interview, she

explained that she preferred to use reporting verbs like write for two different reasons:

They were most certainly easier for me and because yeah, I just I don't know, I feel like

every time I write something, I feel like I'm—you never know who's going to read it. So

I just want everyone to be able to understand because I remember one time my essay

about queerness was—well, that essay [is the one that] I sent to my aunt. So that's why I

was like okay, I think she should read this, and it was perfect because she didn't attend

college. She just maybe finished only high school, and so these words were perfect for

her and so it wasn't difficult. It wasn't going to be boring because of all those other

words she couldn't understand… I always thought, why write in a complicated way? I

just want everybody to read this to understand what I'm trying to say because I read texts

most of the time and I spend more time looking up the words or trying to understand a

sentence that is full of complicated words than understanding the real meaning behind the

argument. (Interview, 06/12/2015)

Such a comment is striking in its similarity to one made by Fabiola about a writing assignment

six years previously, while in Grade 10 (Kibler, 2011b):

Amanda: ¿Cómo describes tu escritura?

How do you describe your writing?

Fabiola: La escribo como, ah como la gente lo puede leer y lo puede entender,

creo yo.

Uh I write it in a way, in a way that people can read it and can understand

it, I think.

At that time, the first author argued that Fabiola—and other peers—often had audiences not

shared or anticipated by instructors and that these choices, along with English language

proficiency, likely shape adolescent L2 writers' lexical decisions. According to Fabiola's

comments several years later, her choice of verbs might still have been at least partially designed

to make her argument more easily understood by readers other than her teachers.

When considering relationships among reporting verbs, evidential types, and evidential

functions, additional patterns appeared that help to explain the relationships between these three

elements of evidential use. Reporting verbs by definition only occurred alongside two types of

evidentials—incorporated quotations and paraphrases—and relationships between verbs and

these evidential types can be seen in Table 5. For incorporated quotations, the following verbs

were used more than 10 times for each evidential type: answer, argue, describe, explain, and

write. These verbs are distributed fairly evenly in incorporated quotations, with explain used

somewhat more frequently than the other verbs and describe and answer used less often. For

paraphrases, the table shows reliance upon relatively fewer reporting verbs, and particularly

frequent use of the verb argue. When viewed alongside the functional analysis that showed

notable use of paraphrases for illustrating authors' positions (see Table 4), it appeared that

Fabiola drew heavily upon argue to accomplish that particular type and function. This trend also

suggests development over time in that these features were used consistently only in university,

around Grades 13 and 14.

TABLE 5

Relationships between reporting verbs and evidential functions (shown in Figure 1)

likewise suggested the specialized use of particular verbs in presenting evidence for different

purposes. All reporting verbs used 10 or more times per function (answer, argue, describe,

explain, suggest, write) are included for the six evidential functions. Notable patterns include a

predominance of explain for asserting and supporting a claim and establishing links between

sources, frequent use of argue to illustrate authors' positions (as described above) and assert or

support claims, and a reliance on write to introduce source texts.

FIGURE 1

Discussion

This analysis of an L2 writer's argumentative writing from Grade 9 in high school through her

four years in university found interconnecting patterns across evidential type (e.g., quotation or

paraphrase), function (e.g., rhetorical purpose in the argument), and reporting verbs used, both

over time and across settings. Because of the naturalistic nature of this study, our analysis could

not, however, definitively determine whether course expectations, instruction, or writing

expertise (Neff et al., 2004) most adequately accounted for these trends. Given that writing

proficiency is dynamic and influenced by multiple factors, variations in Fabiola's use of

evidentials likely exemplify how myriad institutional, disciplinary, and individual factors

influence writing performance.

Evidential Types

Fabiola used varied evidential types, and although course type apparently influenced these

patterns to some degree, changes over time were most noticeable in that she shifted from relying

initially on unincorporated quotations to using all evidential types by the end of high school. The

difficulty of paraphrasing in an L2, documented by others (Hirvela & Du, 2013; Shi, 2012) and

noted by Fabiola herself, suggests that her later use of this evidential type might at least partially

be related to her developing L2 linguistic resources, as well as her more general development as

a writer (Keck, 2014). In university, Fabiola employed all evidential types, particularly

incorporated quotations, with greater frequency and sophistication, and although her university

writing courses likely supported some of the changes noted in Grade 13, development continued

in subsequent years. Fabiola's interview comments suggest that such sophistication might relate

to her growing English language expertise, her reading and writing of disciplinary texts, and

instructional support provided early in her university career regarding incorporated quotations. A

lack of instruction in paraphrasing was notable, however, particularly given the difficulties

Fabiola reported.

Generally , our findings align with those from other studies including L2 writers (Davis,

2013; Keck , 2014; Petrić, 2012), in that Fabiola moved from copying texts verbatim to more

original phrasing. Disciplinary differences have been noted in terms of whether students

integrate authors' names or just cite them (see Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011), and Fabiola's

use of incorporated quotations in gender and women's studies and cultural studies followed

disciplinary norms found in the humanities of emphasizing authors' exact wording (Bazerman,

1994) and including exact texts with accompanying commentary rather than just nonintegral

citations (Hyland, 1999).

Evidential Functions

Although Fabiola used evidentials most often to assert and support claims—a function noted in

studies by Borg (2000), Mansourizadeh and Ahmad (2011), and Petrić and Harwood (2013)—

she also employed them for a range of other purposes that have also been documented in

research (e.g., Barton, 1993; Borg, 2000; Charles, 2006). Consistent across time and most

evident in university was a trend toward using evidentials for a broader range of purposes

(although Fabiola did not report receiving instruction in doing so for purposes beyond

asserting/supporting claims), and using both incorporated quotations and paraphrases to

accomplish these functions. Such a pattern suggests close relationships between the language and

literacy expertise needed to employ such evidential types and more nuanced rhetorical skills,

particularly in terms of illustrating authorial positions, giving background relevant to the

argument, establishing links between texts, and critiquing others' claims.

Reporting Verbs

Fabiola employed an increasing range of reporting verbs over time, using less than 4% of the

total verbs in high school but more than 50% in each of her last two years of university, increases

that started when she took university writing courses but continued throughout university. As

seen in the qualitative examination of one of Fabiola's commonly used reporting verbs (write),

even reporting verbs without strong stance were used for sophisticated rhetorical purposes over

time as well as for outside audiences, perhaps providing a counterexample to Lancaster's (2012)

finding that reporting verb constructions such as "XX writes…" could be a feature of less

successful writing. In addition, diverse reporting verbs were used for various evidential types and

functions, but argue appeared to be used for more explicitly argumentative purposes (in our case,

for asserting/supporting claims and illustrating authors' positions: see also Charles, 2006) and

more neutral verbs like write were used for less directly argumentative functions across both

paraphrases and unincorporated quotations.

Conclusions

In this study of the relatively under-researched phenomenon of how a language-minoritized L2

writer developed argumentative writing expertise across high school and university, it is

important to note certain limitations. For example, it was not possible to incorporate observations

of instruction for all written assignments or examine original sources used for evidence.

Additionally, a lack of argumentative writing in high school courses other than humanities made

comparisons by course type across these years difficult, though such a trend also reflects

concerns with the extent to which argumentative writing is taught and practiced in high schools.

Nevertheless, notable features of Fabiola's evidential use over time included the

increasingly sophisticated use of evidential resources for a range of rhetorical purposes and the

development from unincorporated to incorporated and paraphrased evidence over time. Such

trends, previously noted in a range of crosssectional studies, have been here confirmed in a

unique longitudinal context. Previous research has also not fully discussed the phenomenon of

unincorporated quotations, perhaps due to the lack of previous research on L2 argumentative

writing in adolescents, who might be more likely to use (or be taught) this less rhetorically

sophisticated evidential type.

Fabiola's developmental trajectory through evidential use in argumentative writing

proved to be nonlinear and dependent upon multiple factors, including course type and grade

level as well as instruction. In this way, Fabiola's experience resonates with the notion that

writing development is not an isolated competency but a set of skills developed in relation to

each other, influenced by a learner's lived experiences and interests (Newell et al., 2011; Rogers,

2009). Although evidentials increased in frequency only modestly over the course of the study,

the expanding range of evidential types, functions, and reporting verbs used suggests that

successful L2 writing development can be seen even across a wide-ranging, diverse set of texts,

an important insight for case study research in applied linguistics.

Insofar as this analysis of evidentials is relevant to other argumentative writing features

and academic writing more generally, it suggests that language and literacy competencies likely

develop in concert with rhetorical skills. Fabiola's case suggests that for at least some language-

minoritized L2 writers, it is possible to employ evidentials in increasingly sophisticated ways in

the context of discipline-specific undergraduate classrooms, even without extensive explicit

writing instruction throughout all four years of undergraduate studies. At the same time, we

cannot know what changes might have occurred in Fabiola's trajectory with more intensive

instruction about evidential use in her discipline-specific classrooms. The instruction she

received in her university writing classes seemed to provide some of this foundation, although a

broader range of rhetorical functions for evidential use appeared more consistently in the corpus

only after she took those courses, not during them. Further, the data suggest that although

evidential tasks, such as paraphrasing, may not be a focus of instruction, they appear to be a

long-term endeavor for L2 writers even at advanced levels of proficiency. Such patterns clearly

speak to other aspects of L2 development more generally, in terms of the ways in which

language may be influenced by explicit instruction and by the lengthy developmental trajectory

of certain writing practices, like paraphrasing.

From a practitioner perspective, Fabiola's development provides a heartening example of

the ways in which language-minoritized L2 writers can in fact achieve success as university-

level writers. Her trajectory—likely facilitated at the university level by the institution's policy to

limit remedial placements and enroll students in discipline-specific courses quickly—stands in

marked contrast to the situation in which many language-minoritized L2 writers find themselves

once in higher education, in which they are faced with long lists of remedial coursework in

writing and reading before they can enroll in courses aligned with their own interests or

background knowledge.

Although Fabiola's case is inevitably unique, it nonetheless speaks to the need for

instructors across disciplines to understand writing development as a years-long trajectory that

may not demonstrate predictable growth in a semester or even a year. And although there is no

evidence to suggest that Fabiola's instructors explicitly taught her about evidential use in

particular disciplines, engagement in disciplinary writing practices likely played a role in

supporting her development of argumentative writing during later university years. Overall, this

analysis suggests to practitioners that variations in language-minoritized L2 argumentative

writing may be reflective of multiple factors, including but not limited to language proficiency

and course or discipline, and perhaps most importantly, exposure to authentic disciplinary

contexts in which argumentative writing is used.

Final revised version accepted 1 March 2016

Notes

1 We use L2 writer paralleling Cook's (2002) L2 user, which emphasizes a multicompetent view

and avoids implying individuals acquiring a language are perpetual learners rather than users of

that language. We use language minoritized to indicate that Fabiola's home language (Spanish)

is positioned by policies and institutions as a "minority language" in the US context.

2 Names of all participants and institutions in this study are pseudonyms.

3 This review of evidentials focuses on their use in English. We acknowledge that evidential use

(along with argumentative writing) varies across languages and cultures but focus on English

because it is the language in which writing for this study was completed.

4 Swales differentiated integral and nonintegral citations by whether they do (integral) or do not

(nonintegral) name the author (see also Note 9).

5 High school courses varied annually, but argumentative writing occurred only in humanities

courses.

6 We conceptualize course types as related, but not equivalent, to disciplines. Courses reflect

some disciplinary elements but have instructional or institutional components that may or may

not represent disciplines, which themselves are difficult to define (Prior, 1998). The uneven

distribution of texts across course types and years is a reflection of Fabiola's writing experiences,

rather than a study design flaw. Care should be taken, however, in interpreting trends for courses

and grades with relatively fewer texts.

7 As it would in any study, grade level is associated with several factors, including institutional

and curricular demands related to the specific grade level; the student's age, level of intellectual

development, and level of language/literacy development; and in Fabiola's case, English

language proficiency because she began Grade 9 at an assessed beginning proficiency level.

8 Se conforma(r)on = they resigned themselves to him. Fabiola, at her teacher's suggestion, used

Spanish in writing if she did not know English vocabulary. She only did this in Grade 9.

9 We relied upon an unincorporated/incorporated distinction rather than Swales' (1990)

nonintegral/integral typology. The latter requires explicit authorial citation (e.g., "Beynon and

Dunkerly agree…"), while the former refers to how quotations are integrated into writing, often

through authorial citations but also through tags, like "according to the text," another form of

evidential development important to the study.

References

Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities,

and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 15, 102‒117. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.05.001

Alvarez, J. (1994). In the time of the butterflies. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

Andrews, R. (2000). Introduction: Learning to argue in higher education. In S. Mitchell & R.

Andrews (Eds.), Learning to argue in higher education (pp. 1‒14). Portsmouth, NH:

Boyton/Cook.

Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic

writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication , 31, 151‒183.

doi:10.1177/0741088314527055

Barton, E. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English ,

55, 745‒769. doi:10.2307/378428

Bazerman, C. (1994). Constructing experience. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University

Press.

Borg, E. (2000). Citation practices in academic writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and

perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 26‒44). Reading, UK: Centre for

Applied Language Studies, University of Reading.

Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based

study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes , 25, 310‒331.

doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003

Compton-Lilly, C. (2007). Re -reading families: The literate lives of urban children four years

later. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1–

28). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Davis, M. (2013). The development of source use by international postgraduate students. Journal

of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 125‒135. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.008

Duff, P. (2014). Case study research on language learning and use. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 34 , 233‒ 255. doi:10.1017/S0267190514000051

Gitrow, J. (2000). "Argument" as a term in talk about student writing. In S. Mitchell & R.

Andrews (Eds.), Learning to argue in higher education (pp. 129‒145). Portsmouth, NH:

Boyton/Cook.

Haney Lopez, I. (1996). White by law: The legal construction of race. New York: New York

University.

Harklau, L. (1999). Representations of immigrant language minorities in US higher education.

Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 2, 257‒279. doi:10.1080/1361332990020206

Harklau, L. (2001). From high school to college: Student perspectives on literacy practice.

Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 33‒70. doi:10.1080/10862960109548102

Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing, grades 6‒12: Supporting claims with relevant

evidence and clear reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann

Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Hirvela, A. (2013). Preparing English language learners for argumentative writing. In T. Silva &

L. de Oliveira (Eds.), Second language writing in the secondary classroom (pp. 1‒31).

New York: Routledge.

Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). "Why am I paraphrasing?" Undergraduate ESL writers'

engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes, 12, 87‒98. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary

knowledge. Applied Linguistics , 20, 267‒341. doi:10.1093/applin/20.3.341

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow,

UK: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York: Continuum.

Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination

of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing , 25, 4‒22.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005

Kibler, A. (2009). Talking writing: Adolescent English learners in the content areas.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

Kibler, A. (2011a). "Casi nomás me dicen qué escribir/They almost just tell me what to write":

A longitudinal analysis of teacher-student interactions in a linguistically diverse

mainstream secondary classroom. Journal of Education , 191, 45‒58.

Kibler, A. (2011b). "I write it in a way that people can read it": How teachers and adolescent L2

writers describe content area writing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 20, 211‒226.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.005

Lancaster, Z. (2012). Stance and reader positioning in upper-level student writing in political

theory and economics (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

MI.

Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and

editorialist's authority. Journal of Pragmatics , 36, 687‒714. doi:10.1016/s0378-

2166(03)00032-8

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (1999). Writing as academic literacies: Understanding textual practices

in higher education. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and

practices (pp. 62‒81). London: Longman.

Li, Y. (2013). Three ESL students writing a policy paper assignment: An activity-analytic

perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12, 73‒86.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.006

Mansourizadeh, K., & Ahmad, U. K. (2011). Citation practices among non-native expert and

novice scientific writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 10, 152‒161.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.004

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Mitchell, S. (2000). Putting argument into the mainstream. In S. Mitchell & R. Andrews (Eds.),

Learning to argue in higher education (pp. 146‒154). Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.

Neff, J., Ballesteros, F., Dafouz, E., Martínez, F., Rica, J. P., Díez, M., & Prieto, R. (2004).

Formulating writer stance: A contrastive study of EFL learner corpora. In U. Connor & T.

A. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 73‒89).

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning

argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly ,

46, 273‒304. doi:10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4

Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language

writing. English for Specific Purposes , 25, 4‒29. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.004

Petrić , B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master's theses.

Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 238–253. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.002

Petrić , B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal

of Second Language Writing, 21, 102‒117. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.005

Petrić , B., & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported

citation functions: An exploratory study of a successful L2 student's writing. Journal of

English for Academic Purposes, 12, 110‒124. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002

Polio, C., & Shi, L. (2012). Perceptions and beliefs about textual appropriation and source use in

second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing , 21, 95‒101.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.001

Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the

academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative

competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education.

Review of Educational Research, 83, 483–520. doi:10.3102/0034654313487606

Roberge, M., Siegal, M., & Harklau, L. (2009). Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching

academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. New York: Routledge.

Rogers, P. (2009). The contributions of North American longitudinal studies of writing in higher

education to our understanding of writing development. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K.

Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing

research (pp. 365–377). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shaw, P, & Pecorari, D. (2013). Source use in academic writing: An introduction to the special

issue. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12, A1‒A3.

doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.001

Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 21, 134‒148. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003

Sinclair, U. (1906). The jungle. New York: Doubleday, Jabber, & Company.

SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. (n.d.). Dedoose (Version 6.1.18) [Computer software].

Los Angeles: Author. Available at http://www.dedoose.com

Smolkin, L. B., McTigue, E. M., Donovan, C., & Coleman, J. (2009). Explanation in science

trade books recommended for use with elementary students. Science Education , 93, 587‒

610. doi:10.1002/sce.20313

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2014). Variation in citational practice in a corpus of student biology papers from

parenthetical plonking to intertextual storytelling. Written Communication , 31, 118‒141.

doi:10.1177/0741088313515166

Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D. Z. (2013). What linguistic features are indicative of

writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program.

TESOL Quarterly, 47, 420‒430. doi:10.1002/tesq.91

Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for

Specific Purposes, 13, 129‒148. doi:10.1016/0889-4906(94)90012-4

Thompson, C., Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2013). Where from, who, why and how? A study of the

use of sources by first year L2 university students. Journal of English for Academic

Purposes, 12, 99‒109. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.004

Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2006). Gender and discipline: Exploring metadiscourse variation in

academic book reviews. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi, M. (Eds.), Academic discourse across

disciplines (pp. 177‒ 202) . Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.

Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and

stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30, 36‒

62. doi:10.1177/0741088312469013

Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic

language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education

and Bilingualism, 7, 102‒132. doi:10.1080/13670050408667804

Wardle, E. (2009). "Mutt Genres" and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of

the university? College Composition and Communication, 60, 765‒789.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the

publisher's website:

Appendix S1. High School and University Transcripts.

Appendix S2. Description of the Corpus.

Appendix S3. Sample Argumentative Writing Tasks.

Appendix S4. Interview Data Analysis.

Notes. Grade 13 represents the first year of university. Other kinds of writing occurred and were

collected in all study years, but only argumentative texts (and interviews about them) are

included here.

Table 2 Description of argumentative texts by course type and grade level

Notes. No argumentative texts were available for Grade 10. HS = high school humanities; UW =

university writing; GWS = gender and women's studies; CS = cultural (Chicano & African-

American) studies; PHIL= philosophy; LS = legal studies.

Table 4 Percent of evidential functions in quotations and paraphrases

Illustrate authors' positions

Give background about topic

Establish links between sources

Notes. Percent values are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage point.

Table 5 Percent of reporting verbs used with incorporated quotations and paraphrases

Notes. Percent values are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage point.

Figure 1 Instances of reporting verbs used with six evidential functions.

Page 52 of 58!

Supporting Information (Appendix)

Page 53 of 58!

Appendix S1: High School and University Transcripts

English Language Development

*English 1 (combined with History)

*Introduction to World History (combined with English)

Child Development (community college)

Early Childhood Development (community college)

English Language Development

*English 2 (combined with History)

*World History (combined with English)

Myth, Folklore, and La Raza (community college)

*English 3 (combined with History)

Spanish for Native Speakers 1

*US History (combined with English)

Life and Career (community college)

Reading (community college)

*English 4 (combined with gov't/econ)

Math Analysis/Trigonometry

Spanish Advanced Placement

*U.S. Government and Economics (combined with English)

High School Grade Point Average (GPA): 3.84 out of 4.0

Literature of American Cultures

*Introduction to Gender and Women's Studies

Introduction to Human Nutrition

*Chicana Feminist Writers

*Introduction to Feminist Theory

*Identity Across Difference

Analytic Geometry and Calculus

*Women in Muslim and Arab Worlds

Introduction to Statistics

*Cultural Representations of Sexuality

Foundations of Legal Studies

Foundation of Criminal Law

The Supreme Court and Public Policy

*Immigration and Citizenship

*African Americans in the Industrial Age

Punishment in Culture and Society

University GPA overall: 2.905 out of 4.0

University GPA in GWS Major: 3.45 out of 4.0

Notes. UW = university writing; GWS = gender and women's studies; CS = cultural (Chicano &

African-American) studies; PHIL= philosophy; LS = legal studies. Most courses were graded on

an A-F scale, but some were pass/fail. On the four-point GPA scale, 4 = A, 3 = B, 2 = C, 1 = D/F.

aAn * indicates a course in which argumentative writing was completed.

Page 55 of 58!

Appendix S2: Description of the Corpus

Note. HS = high-school humanities; UW = university writing; GWS = gender and women's studies; CS = cultural

(Chicano & African-American) studies; PHIL= philosophy; LS = legal studies.

Page 56 of 58!

Appendix S3: Sample Argumentative Writing Tasks

Corpus Text 4:

Based on the book, In the Time of the Butterflies (Alvarez, 1994): The

first section to be completed for your research poster will explain

important background information about [the main character] Minerva

Mirabal. You will be expected to write three body paragraphs each

focusing on one part of the Background section: 1) Important Family

Information, 2) Important Childhood Experiences, 3) Important

Educational Experiences. Remember, a body paragraph has the

following four parts: topic sentence, context, evidence, analysis.

Corpus Text 6:

Based on the book, The Jungle (Sinclair, 1906): How did the industrial

revolution impact immigrant workers in The Jungle? Create a specific

thesis and support it with examples from the book.

Corpus Text 8:

In the context of a unit on World War II: As the U.S. fought for

democracy and freedom in other countries during World War II, did it

protect democracy and freedom within the U.S.?

Corpus Text 17:

Write a film analysis of the dramatic story of Far From Heaven by

Todd Haynes in terms of the insights it provides into 1950's upper class

families' way of life.

Gender &

Women's

Studies

Philosophy

Corpus Text 21:

Based on the book, Leaving Beirut (Ghoussoub, 2007): analyze the

theme of revenge and retaliation and the examination of women and

their reaction to war and war's reaction to them.

Corpus Text 23:

Explain why version 1 of Descartes' argument from doubt is an

argument for Substance Dualism, and version 1.1 is an argument for

Property Dualism

Corpus Text 32:

Final Paper: The purpose of the assignment is to have you think

independently about the themes of the course and use what we have

been learning in the course to analyze a relevant source. Choose an

aspect of the author's argument or narrative and react to it. (Fabiola

used Charles A. Reich's (1964) article, "The New Property.")

Corpus Text 36:

Research Paper: Selecting from a provided list of individuals,

organization, and themes relevant to African Americans' roles in…the

United States' economic, political, social, scientific, and cultural

traditions…, [the paper] should consist of a critical analysis of the

impact made by your subject or organization upon American society.

Page 57 of 58!

Appendix S4: Interview Data Analysis

The table below provides a full list of codes, their definitions, and selected examples of each.

Form in which the

evidential is

incorporated into the

text, either through

unincorporated direct

quotations,

incorporated direct

quotations, or

paraphrases

Quotations

(QUOT);

Paraphrase

(PARA)

Instruction

received

(INST);

Writers'

use (USE)

"I remember [quotations] are good for helping our readers

understand what you're trying to say and also to just have support

from other people so that your readers are saying oh, she's not just

coming up with this argument out of the blue, that someone else is

talking about this, too. They also told me … too much quotation

they told me is also not good. Oh, you know what? I think in one of

my essays in [University Writing], I did a lot of quotations and the

professor gave me a comment about that, but I used mostly

quotation. (Interview, 4/11/2014)" Codes applied: QUOT, INST

"For people who are just learning English or who it's their second

language, it's difficult to paraphrase because I feel like…I think

there are things like that in English that I do not know and so what if

I misinterpret that? (Interview, 4/11/2014)"

Codes applied: PARA, USE

Evidential

function

(FUNCT)

Rhetorical function the

evidential fulfills in the

larger argument

Asserting/

supporting

claims

(CLAIM)a

"'So you suggest that GPS surveillance does not constitute a search,

yet you do not identify anyone in the article we read.' Yeah, I don't

know if I referred to anyone. (Interview, 9/28/2010)"

Codes applied: CLAIM, INST, USE

"La evidencia fue la que realmente me ayudó / The evidence was

what really helped me. (Interview, 6/29/2011)"

Codes applied: CLAIM, USE

Verbs used in

incorporated quotations

and paraphrases to

introduce evidence

"I also learned new words such as, 'this quote suggests.' Well, I

guess I knew the word, but I didn't know I could use it in that

context. Like, 'this quote suggests,' 'she comments on' – and yeah,

things like that. (Interview, 12/16/10)"

(e.g., "The author

argues…)

Codes applied: RVERB, INST

"They were most certainly easier for me and because yeah, I just I

don't know, I feel like every time I write something, I feel like I'm

– you never know who's going to read it. So I just want everyone to

be able to understand because I remember one time my essay about

queerness was – well, that essay [is the one that] I sent to my aunt.

So that's why I was like okay, I think she should read this, and it

was perfect because she didn't attend college. She just maybe

finished only high school, and so these words were perfect for her

and so it wasn't difficult. It wasn't going to be boring because of all

those other words she couldn't understand….I always thought, why

write in a complicated way? I just want everybody to read this to

understand what I'm trying to say because I read texts most of the

time and I spend more time looking up the words or trying to

understand a sentence that is full of complicated words than

understanding the real meaning behind the argument. (Interview,

06/12/2015)"

Codes applied: RVERB, USE

Comments and

descriptions of

evidence and academic

writing more generally,

not specific to type,

function, or reporting

verbs

"For my [University] writing classes, they were giving us a specific

way to write things. Or they will tell us to write it about a specific

book or specific argument, and that had to be the argument the

teacher was thinking about, otherwise it was wrong. I feel like in

[Gender and Women's Studies] there's no right answer…I think

that's one of the things that's helped me a lot to develop my writing.

(Interview, 10/16/2011)"

Code applied: GENERAL

"99 percent of the time they told us, you have to use this number of

sources or this specific source or within these sources. (Interview,

4/11/2014)"

Code applied: GENERAL

a This was the only function that Fabiola described learning or using during interviews, though others were present in her writing.

... al., 2019), transitional markers (Agustin and Ngadiman, 2013), interactional meta-discourse (Lee and Deakin, 2016), lexical verbs (Kanestion, et. al., 2016) as well as rhetorical devices (Yang and Sun, 2012), cohesive devices (Liu and Braine, 2005) and providing evidences (Kibler and Hardigree, 2017) in constructing argumentative writing. The study of individualized voice in argumentative writing by Helms-Park and Stapleton (2003) also found that there might not be connection between the linguistic and rhetorical devices. ...

Hanna Sundari
Rina Husnaini Febriyanti

p>Argumentative writing plays an important role in academic writing at university level. However, learners mostly find that writing this essay a challenging and effortful task. This present study aims at exploring the structures of argumentative essay written by Indonesian EFL students from one university in Jakarta Indonesia. Moreover, it investigates their difficulty and constraints during composing the essay. Using a descriptive qualitative design, the authors selected writing assignment and questionnaire for collecting data. A layout of Toulmin model of arguments was used in analyzing the essays. The findings of the study show that the argumentative papers cover the main elements: claim (thesis statement), data, rebut, and rebuttal data using either in block pattern or point-by-point pattern. The elements show diverse in types. Logical analysis and explanation are the most frequently used on the papers. Though they present acceptable thesis with well-organized essay, some information is unrelated and data for supporting the claim are seemingly insufficient. In addition, the students think that this essay as difficult task. In general, lack of knowledge, vocabulary and practice cause the constraints. In specific level, the students report that giving argument, finding support and working on counterargument become source of difficulty and constraints.</p

... The learning of writing process will enable students to express their opinion better especially using the argumentative writing. Argumentative writing can develop student's ability to draw ideas supported by the argument and accepted by the readers (Beach & Doerr-Stevens, 2011: Hardigree & Kibler, 2016. Furthermore, students have difficulty producing academic arguments in their required essays, because argumentative writing requires the writer take a stance. ...

... T he ability to produce effective arguments is one of the defining characteristics of competence in English as a foreign language (EFL) learners (Mitchell, 2000). Among the three classification of argument development proposed by McNeill and Krajcik (2009), that is, claims, evidence, and reasoning, providing persuasive evidence is of utmost importance (Kibler & Hardigree, 2017). Aside from drawing on personal knowledge and experience, learners often resort to various sources (e.g., newspapers, journals, and webpages) in the evidence-gathering process. ...

The ability to produce effective arguments is one of the defining characteristics of competence in English as a foreign language (EFL) learners (Mitchell, 2000). Among the three classification of argument development proposed by McNeill and Krajcik (2009), that is, claims, evidence, and reasoning, providing persuasive evidence is of utmost importance (Kibler & Hardigree, 2017). Aside from drawing on personal knowledge and experience, learners often resort to various sources (e.g., newspapers, journals, and webpages) in the evidence‐gathering process. However, the varying extent of reliability of as well as the inherent conflicts in information among different sources may pose challenges to learners. Therefore, when using evidence sources, learners' ability to evaluate their quality is critical (Barzilai, Zohar, & Mor‐Hagani, 2018). Researchers have identified the challenges faced by learners, including having blind faith in everything found on the Web (Kuiper, Wolman, & Terwel, 2008), lacking the initiative to evaluate source information when uninstructed (Gerjets, Kammerer, & Werner, 2011), and referring to naïve criteria in assessing source quality (Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011), which may result in ineffective reasoning processes. Researchers have argued that, with effective intervention, learners can improve their evaluation ability (Brante & Strømsø, 2018). In this paper, we propose a framework for evidence source evaluation (ESE), and develop a collaborative learning design using this framework to enhance learners' ESE ability.

Salasiah Ammade

The paper presents the data on the needs of learning in writing course by using ASSURE model. Researching the needs of learning is considered important as the early stage in development research on the use of TPACK based instruction in teaching writing.The data was gathered through questionnaire given to the students of English education department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Parepare, Indonesia who enroll in writing course. The questionnaire was set in view of ASSURE model which the initial step is analyzing learner and specify more on students' general characteristics, specific competencies, and learning style. The data from questionnaire was analyzed using Ms Excel and SPSS version 21.0, and presented on chart. The data result showed students' learning need in the course of writing is supposed to associate with the use of technology touching in all aspect of their learning.

... An argumentative writing task is demanding for L2 writers who may not have a clear idea of this genre of writing (Kibler and Hardigree, 2017). Thus, there are a lot of variables that affect this process. ...

Burak Tomak

Writing is one of the productive skills for language learners. This study was conducted to design a unit for language students who were enrolled in the School of Foreign Languages in one of the most prestigious Turkish state universities located in Istanbul. These learners had been taught different academic essay types in this educational institution for which the researcher designed an instructional unit on "Argumentative Essay Writing", which was highly needed for the learners taking English-medium-instruction to pursue their academic studies. For the purpose of this study, one prep class was chosen to implement the designed unit so that the efficiency could be evaluated in the end. As for the data collection tools, interviews were arranged with three students in the class where the design was implemented. Three junior students in different departments who had previously had a prep school experience before they took their departmental courses in their faculties were also interviewed as well as the instructors who gave the "academic writing" course by teaching the essay types for several years in this research context. Additionally, the writing tasks given to the students of the class where the research was conducted as well as their mid-term papers were also included in the data. All through these stages, observation protocols were also used by the "on-site" researcher. Results showed that an efficient and applicable unit for an "Argumentative Essay" is possible considering the students' needs, entry characteristics, goals and objectives, instructional strategy, assessment, implementation and evaluation of the whole process.

... Writing in particular tends to be challenging for second language users, as noted by faculty (Bacha & Bahous, 2008;Hartshorn et al., 2017). Numerous studies have proven that EAL students struggle with different writing elements than native speakers both on the local and global levels (Bacha & Bahous, 2008;Chodorow et al., 2007;Kibler & Hardigree, 2017;J. J. Lee et al., 2018). ...

Business remains a popular major for international students in the United States. Little is known, however, about how these students fare in business communication (BCOM) classes. This qualitative study evaluates the challenges and needs of English as an additional language (EAL) students in BCOM courses at a private university in the United States. We surveyed and interviewed 15 BCOM instructors and 30 students previously enrolled in BCOM. Results reveal faculty are aware of some, but not all, of the linguistic, cultural, emotional, time, and accommodation challenges EAL students face. We discuss suggestions for accommodating EAL students' unique needs in BCOM courses.

Notwithstanding the central role played by argumentation in research writing, writing courses on offer to students on the doctoral programmes hardly manifest this significance. To emphasize the role of argumentation in research, this study investigated the effectiveness of an EAP course on argumentation collaboratively taught by two instructors to students enrolled on the doctoral programme in a central university in India. To see the impact of the course on students' argumentation, the data gathered from various writing tasks before, during and after the course were analyzed qualitatively. To understand the overall effectiveness of the course, students' perceptions gathered from the end-of-the-semester questionnaire and teachers' reflections recorded in a dialogic reflective journal were analyzed thematically. Data analysis revealed that explicit instruction of argumentation led to improvement in students' sense of argumentation though such an improvement was not uniform across all the students' written arguments. Both the students' perceptions and the teachers' reflections indicate that various pedagogical decisions made throughout the course contributed to the effectiveness of the course. The findings imply that explicit teaching of argumentation alongside appropriate pedagogical decisions appeared to help these students improve their argumentation.

Jasti Appa Swami
Sk Alim

Paul M. Rogers

For many decades researchers have investigated the development of writing abilities (Britton, 1975; Applebee, 2000). While this research has included attention to children's acquisition of print literacy prior to schooling as well as writing in the workplace and the professions, a good deal of this research interest has been sustained by the need for an evidence-based foundation for the teaching and learning of writing in schools. Longitudinal studies in particular with their emphasis on change over time and across contexts have proven a particularly appropriate method in understanding writing development. As Emig (1971, p. 95) noted in her pioneering work Longitudinal case studies of a given sample of students, following them from the time they begin to write in the earliest elementary grades throughout their school careers, up to and including graduate school. .. would make better known the developmental dimensions of the writing process, both for the individual and for members of various chronological and ability age groups. To date, no studies of the scope for which Emig called have been conducted ; yet, in North America a number of longitudinal studies of writing have been conducted, particularly in higher education settings. Methodologically longitudinal approaches have proven to have incorporated four out of the six levels of inquiry in research on the composing process proposed by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987, p. 34): reflective inquiry, empirical variable testing, text analysis, and process description. Rather than comparing cohorts to control groups, as in theory-embedded experimentation, findings for these studies were derived by examining changes in the performances, attitudes, beliefs, and values of the participants. Moreover, they were based on viewing events and their impact on the cohorts or participants as they occurred over time, and did not include experimental interventions.

Zak Lancaster

This dissertation project examines patterns of stance in essays written by high- and low-performing student writers in two upper-level undergraduate courses, one in political theory and the other in economics. It employs methods of linguistic discourse analysis, drawing largely on Appraisal Theory (a subset of systemic functional linguistics), in combination with methods from corpus linguistics and theoretical insights from rhetorical genre studies. It examines how recurring patterns of stance in students' essays correspond to the goals and assessment criteria for writing in the courses, as revealed through interviews with the instructors and analysis of selected course material. Through this robust set of analytic approaches, the study aims to make explicit patterns of stance in student writing that correlate with high- and low-graded essays and with the disciplinary contexts. The broader aim is to render explicit patterns of interpersonal meanings constructed in students' texts that construe such abstract qualities as critical reasoning, complexity and nuance in argumentation, and control of the discourse—features identified by the instructors as valued in student writing. The study contributes to the field of composition and rhetoric by pinpointing discursive resources that enable some student writers to construct more discipline-congruent styles of argumentation than others. Specific findings show that, while the two essay assignments require different ways of using language to construct valued stances, the high-performing writers in both contexts more consistently construct a "novice academic" stance while the low-performing writers more consistently construct a "student" stance. The former is marked by the rhetorical qualities of contrastiveness, dialogic control, critical distance, and discoursal alignment, or assimilation of the disciplinary discourse. In contrast, the "student" stance is marked by frequent personalizing moves, repeated references to the classroom discourse, and comparatively infrequent use of discursive resources that construe the rhetorical qualities listed above. These findings have implications for instruction in writing in the disciplines (WID) contexts, specifically in terms of how instructors can refine their metalanguage about writing for discussing stance with students explicitly and in detail.

This exemplary collection, like the conference that it grew out of, will bring new perspectives to the rich dialogue of contemporary research on writing and advance understanding of this complex and important human activity.

Ian Haney-López

Exploring the social, and specifically legal origins, of white racial identity, Ian Haney-Lopez here examines cases in America's past that have been instrumental in forming contemporary conceptions of race, law, and whiteness. In 1790, Congress limited naturalization to white persons. This racial prerequisite for citizenship remained in force for over a century and a half, enduring until 1952. In a series of important cases, including two heard by the United States Supreme Court, judges around the country decided and defined who was white enough to become American. White by Law traces the reasoning employed by the courts intheir efforts to justify the whiteness of some and the non-whiteness of others. Haney-Lopez reveals the criteria that were used, often arbitrarily, to determine whiteness, and thus citizenship: skin color, facial features, national origin, language, culture, ancestry, scientific opinion, and, most importantly, popular opinion. Having defined the social and legal origins of whiteness, the book turns its attention to white identity today and concludes by calling upon whites to acknowledge and renounce their privileged racial identity. Lopez notes that race is a highly contingent social construction that manifests itself in specific times, places, and situations and is informed by other markers of identity. Being White is not a monolithic or homogenous experience; it is changeable, partial, inconstant, and social. Whether one is White, and indeed what is means to be White, can change based on when and where one is and what one is doing.

Carlton Isaac Lancaster

This dissertation project examines patterns of stance in essays written by high- and low-performing students in two upper-level undergraduate courses, one in political theory and the other in economics. It employs methods of linguistic discourse analysis, drawing largely on Appraisal Theory (a subset of Systemic Functional Linguistics), in combination with methods from corpus linguistics and theoretical insights from rhetorical genre studies. It examines how recurring patterns of stance in students' essays correspond to the goals and assessment criteria for writing in the courses, as revealed through interviews with the instructors and analysis of selected course material. Through this robust set of analytic approaches, the study aims to make explicit patterns of stance in student writing that correlate with high- and low-graded essays and with the disciplinary contexts. The broader aim is to render explicit patterns of interpersonal meanings constructed in students' texts that construe such abstract qualities as critical reasoning, complexity and nuance in argumentation, and control of the discourse???features identified by the instructors as valued in student writing. The study contributes to the field of composition and rhetoric by pinpointing discursive resources that enable some student writers to construct more discipline-congruent styles of argumentation than others. Specific findings show that, while the two essay assignments require different ways of using language to construct valued stances, the high-performing writers in both contexts more consistently construct a "novice academic" stance while the low-performing writers more consistently construct a "student" stance. The former is marked by the rhetorical qualities of contrastiveness, dialogic control, critical distance, and discoursal alignment, or assimilation of the disciplinary discourse. In contrast, the ???student??? stance is marked by frequent personalizing moves, repeated references to the classroom discourse, and comparatively infrequent use of discursive resources that construe the rhetorical qualities listed above. These findings have implications for instruction in writing in the disciplines (WID) contexts, specifically in terms of how instructors can refine their metalanguage about writing for discussing stance with students explicitly and in detail.

Write a Strong Counterclaim/claim Statement for Upton Sinclair's Implied Thesis

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307626244_Using_Evidence_in_L2_Argumentative_Writing_A_Longitudinal_Case_Study_Across_High_School_and_University_Evidence_Use_in_L2_Writing

Write a Strong Counterclaim/claim Statement for Upton Sinclair's Implied Thesis

0 Response to "Write a Strong Counterclaim/claim Statement for Upton Sinclair's Implied Thesis"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel