argumentative essay about learning in groups

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• How to write an argumentative essay | Examples & tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips

Published on July 24, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An argumentative essay expresses an extended argument for a particular thesis statement . The author takes a clearly defined stance on their subject and builds up an evidence-based case for it.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

When do you write an argumentative essay, approaches to argumentative essays, introducing your argument, the body: developing your argument, concluding your argument, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about argumentative essays.

You might be assigned an argumentative essay as a writing exercise in high school or in a composition class. The prompt will often ask you to argue for one of two positions, and may include terms like “argue” or “argument.” It will frequently take the form of a question.

The prompt may also be more open-ended in terms of the possible arguments you could make.

Argumentative writing at college level

At university, the vast majority of essays or papers you write will involve some form of argumentation. For example, both rhetorical analysis and literary analysis essays involve making arguments about texts.

In this context, you won’t necessarily be told to write an argumentative essay—but making an evidence-based argument is an essential goal of most academic writing, and this should be your default approach unless you’re told otherwise.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts

At a university level, all the prompts below imply an argumentative essay as the appropriate response.

Your research should lead you to develop a specific position on the topic. The essay then argues for that position and aims to convince the reader by presenting your evidence, evaluation and analysis.

• Don’t just list all the effects you can think of.
• Do develop a focused argument about the overall effect and why it matters, backed up by evidence from sources.
• Don’t just provide a selection of data on the measures’ effectiveness.
• Do build up your own argument about which kinds of measures have been most or least effective, and why.
• Don’t just analyze a random selection of doppelgänger characters.
• Do form an argument about specific texts, comparing and contrasting how they express their thematic concerns through doppelgänger characters.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

An argumentative essay should be objective in its approach; your arguments should rely on logic and evidence, not on exaggeration or appeals to emotion.

There are many possible approaches to argumentative essays, but there are two common models that can help you start outlining your arguments: The Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

Toulmin arguments

The Toulmin model consists of four steps, which may be repeated as many times as necessary for the argument:

• Make a claim
• Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim
• Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim)
• Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives

The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays. You don’t have to use these specific terms (grounds, warrants, rebuttals), but establishing a clear connection between your claims and the evidence supporting them is crucial in an argumentative essay.

Say you’re making an argument about the effectiveness of workplace anti-discrimination measures. You might:

• Claim that unconscious bias training does not have the desired results, and resources would be better spent on other approaches
• Cite data to support your claim
• Explain how the data indicates that the method is ineffective
• Anticipate objections to your claim based on other data, indicating whether these objections are valid, and if not, why not.

Rogerian arguments

The Rogerian model also consists of four steps you might repeat throughout your essay:

• Discuss what the opposing position gets right and why people might hold this position
• Highlight the problems with this position
• Present your own position , showing how it addresses these problems
• Suggest a possible compromise —what elements of your position would proponents of the opposing position benefit from adopting?

This model builds up a clear picture of both sides of an argument and seeks a compromise. It is particularly useful when people tend to disagree strongly on the issue discussed, allowing you to approach opposing arguments in good faith.

Say you want to argue that the internet has had a positive impact on education. You might:

• Acknowledge that students rely too much on websites like Wikipedia
• Argue that teachers view Wikipedia as more unreliable than it really is
• Suggest that Wikipedia’s system of citations can actually teach students about referencing
• Suggest critical engagement with Wikipedia as a possible assignment for teachers who are skeptical of its usefulness.

You don’t necessarily have to pick one of these models—you may even use elements of both in different parts of your essay—but it’s worth considering them if you struggle to structure your arguments.

Regardless of which approach you take, your essay should always be structured using an introduction , a body , and a conclusion .

Like other academic essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction . The introduction serves to capture the reader’s interest, provide background information, present your thesis statement , and (in longer essays) to summarize the structure of the body.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a typical introduction works.

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts is on the rise, and its role in learning is hotly debated. For many teachers who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its critical benefits for students and educators—as a uniquely comprehensive and accessible information source; a means of exposure to and engagement with different perspectives; and a highly flexible learning environment.

The body of an argumentative essay is where you develop your arguments in detail. Here you’ll present evidence, analysis, and reasoning to convince the reader that your thesis statement is true.

In the standard five-paragraph format for short essays, the body takes up three of your five paragraphs. In longer essays, it will be more paragraphs, and might be divided into sections with headings.

Each paragraph covers its own topic, introduced with a topic sentence . Each of these topics must contribute to your overall argument; don’t include irrelevant information.

This example paragraph takes a Rogerian approach: It first acknowledges the merits of the opposing position and then highlights problems with that position.

Hover over different parts of the example to see how a body paragraph is constructed.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

An argumentative essay ends with a conclusion that summarizes and reflects on the arguments made in the body.

No new arguments or evidence appear here, but in longer essays you may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your argument and suggest topics for future research. In all conclusions, you should stress the relevance and importance of your argument.

Hover over the following example to see the typical elements of a conclusion.

The internet has had a major positive impact on the world of education; occasional pitfalls aside, its value is evident in numerous applications. The future of teaching lies in the possibilities the internet opens up for communication, research, and interactivity. As the popularity of distance learning shows, students value the flexibility and accessibility offered by digital education, and educators should fully embrace these advantages. The internet’s dangers, real and imaginary, have been documented exhaustively by skeptics, but the internet is here to stay; it is time to focus seriously on its potential for good.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

• Ad hominem fallacy
• Post hoc fallacy
• Appeal to authority fallacy
• False cause fallacy
• Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

• Choosing Essay Topic
• Write a College Essay
• Write a Diversity Essay
• College Essay Format & Structure
• Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

The majority of the essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that the goal of any essay you’re asked to write is argumentative: To convince the reader of your position using evidence and reasoning.

In composition classes you might be given assignments that specifically test your ability to write an argumentative essay. Look out for prompts including instructions like “argue,” “assess,” or “discuss” to see if this is the goal.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/argumentative-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, how to write an expository essay, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.3: The Argumentative Essay

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58378
• Lumen Learning

Learning Objectives

• Examine types of argumentative essays

Argumentative Essays

You may have heard it said that all writing is an argument of some kind. Even if you’re writing an informative essay, you still have the job of trying to convince your audience that the information is important. However, there are times you’ll be asked to write an essay that is specifically an argumentative piece.

An argumentative essay is one that makes a clear assertion or argument about some topic or issue. When you’re writing an argumentative essay, it’s important to remember that an academic argument is quite different from a regular, emotional argument. Note that sometimes students forget the academic aspect of an argumentative essay and write essays that are much too emotional for an academic audience. It’s important for you to choose a topic you feel passionately about (if you’re allowed to pick your topic), but you have to be sure you aren’t too emotionally attached to a topic. In an academic argument, you’ll have a lot more constraints you have to consider, and you’ll focus much more on logic and reasoning than emotions.

Argumentative essays are quite common in academic writing and are often an important part of writing in all disciplines. You may be asked to take a stand on a social issue in your introduction to writing course, but you could also be asked to take a stand on an issue related to health care in your nursing courses or make a case for solving a local environmental problem in your biology class. And, since argument is such a common essay assignment, it’s important to be aware of some basic elements of a good argumentative essay.

When your professor asks you to write an argumentative essay, you’ll often be given something specific to write about. For example, you may be asked to take a stand on an issue you have been discussing in class. Perhaps, in your education class, you would be asked to write about standardized testing in public schools. Or, in your literature class, you might be asked to argue the effects of protest literature on public policy in the United States.

However, there are times when you’ll be given a choice of topics. You might even be asked to write an argumentative essay on any topic related to your field of study or a topic you feel that is important personally.

Whatever the case, having some knowledge of some basic argumentative techniques or strategies will be helpful as you write. Below are some common types of arguments.

Causal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you argue that something has caused something else. For example, you might explore the causes of the decline of large mammals in the world’s ocean and make a case for your cause.

Evaluation Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make an argumentative evaluation of something as “good” or “bad,” but you need to establish the criteria for “good” or “bad.” For example, you might evaluate a children’s book for your education class, but you would need to establish clear criteria for your evaluation for your audience.

Proposal Arguments

• In this type of argument, you must propose a solution to a problem. First, you must establish a clear problem and then propose a specific solution to that problem. For example, you might argue for a proposal that would increase retention rates at your college.

Narrative Arguments

• In this type of argument, you make your case by telling a story with a clear point related to your argument. For example, you might write a narrative about your experiences with standardized testing in order to make a case for reform.

Rebuttal Arguments

• In a rebuttal argument, you build your case around refuting an idea or ideas that have come before. In other words, your starting point is to challenge the ideas of the past.

Definition Arguments

• In this type of argument, you use a definition as the starting point for making your case. For example, in a definition argument, you might argue that NCAA basketball players should be defined as professional players and, therefore, should be paid.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...essments/20277

Essay Examples

• Click here to read an argumentative essay on the consequences of fast fashion . Read it and look at the comments to recognize strategies and techniques the author uses to convey her ideas.
• In this example, you’ll see a sample argumentative paper from a psychology class submitted in APA format. Key parts of the argumentative structure have been noted for you in the sample.

Link to Learning

For more examples of types of argumentative essays, visit the Argumentative Purposes section of the Excelsior OWL .

Contributors and Attributions

• Argumentative Essay. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/rhetorical-styles/argumentative-essay/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of a man with a heart and a brain. Authored by : Mohamed Hassan. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : pixabay.com/illustrations/decision-brain-heart-mind-4083469/. License : Other . License Terms : pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

Argumentative Essay: How Groups Can Help Students Work Together

Show More Helen Keller once said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” Working together as a group can help students gain skills that they may not even know they had. High school classes should require group work. It helps students gain advance knowledge of how groups work, increases their productivity and performance, and helps with skill development. When students discover how groups work together, they can learn something about themselves as well as someone new. When students work in groups, they can learn to work together. If a conflict were to occur, the students would have to learn how to work it out with each other. They would learn that everyone in the group has to cooperative for things to work out in the end. It would be …show more content… When groups work together, they can achieve more than an individual could alone. Groups could discover something new while working together. They share and discuss ideas, which could lead to an improved understanding of what they are working on. Some say it might be a waste of time considering that students lose focus when they are in a group with their friends, but that will aid students in learning about managing time. Working in groups helps students better develop as people. When students work together, they can develop a set of skills they may not realize they had. They may find out they’re a good listener or maybe a great leader. Though most students do not usually like working in groups, students may find that they are better at working with people than they originally thought. Though conflicts may break out over different ideas, students can figure out how compromise and how to get along with other students. Students can develop skills that they will later need outside of high school . In conclusion, high schools should require group work in classes. Working in groups benefits students in more ways than one. They gain an advance knowledge of how a group works together. They find out how to increase productivity and performance. They develop a new set of skills that they can use later in

Related Documents

Ptlls unit 5 assignment 1.

Week 5, Question 1: Name 3 specific strategies or accommodations a regular classroom teacher could make to meet the learning needs of an ESL/ELL student in his/her classroom. Explain how to use each strategy and the rationale for its appropriateness. Strategy #1: Use Visuals. For strategy 1 the use of visuals will allow ESL learners to understand the material that is being taught.…

Cooperative Learning Assignment Analysis

You area teaching a junior level, maternal-child nursing course and have assigned a cooperative (group project) learning assignment in which students will be creating a community based educational session for prenatal patients. There are 50 students in the class. Determine: 1) how many students you want in each group, 2) how you will assign students to each group, 3) how you will evaluate each student as well as the group as a whole. Include the rationale for each of your decisions.…

School Hat Observation

When the students were working on the laptops they seemed very involved in learning the content. This is hard to find in math, but working on the computers brought in the students interest in the material. Working in a group is also beneficial because if one student is confused, another student could be able to help explain what to do and how to perform the math problem. Sometimes it is good to put students in groups because it is important to hear different ideas that can help spark the understanding of the content. Working in groups also helps form the sense of a community in the classroom.…

Disturbed Body Image Case Study

1. Social skills such as communications skills, a sense of humor and being responsive to other people; 2. Problem solving skills such as planning, help seeking, critical and creative thinking. 3. Autonomy a secure sense of one's identity, self-worth and ability to cope; and 4.…

Riggerfish: Learning Theory-Based Activities (2)

More so, students are more motivated to learn in groups rather than by themselves (Frykedal & Chiriac, 2014). This leads into self-efficacy concepts, as while self-efficacy is defined by the concept of student confidence vs. ability, self-efficacy is typically fueled by the students examining if the content is even possible and reacting accordingly (Schunk, 2012). Working together allows for students to deal with unexpected problems that may spring up, either a lack of understanding or confusion regarding techniques, or even potential bugs in the game with groups as work can be delegated and tested by team mates. It also helps sharpen goal-oriented mindsets by placing emphasis over achieving results with the techniques over individual need to…

Essay On Preschool Observation

• Teacher team work helped the teachers to remain calm and not overwhelmed when the students were transitioning to other activities. The teacher worked together by taking turns by having one teacher always working with the students while the other would clean up the last activity or assist students to the…

Jrotc Reflection

It was the first time the emphasis was placed on the group, not in the individual abilities and skills. Adapting to others personalities and putting differences aside to function as a whole was the key to success. I learned my individual strengths, became confident in them, and used them to learn how to lead. But, I remained humble with my weaknesses and deferred them. Now, group work does take place in other classes, but typically group work in other subject is much smaller and is self-chosen.…

Working With Children

There are numerous benefits of working with children as a group. Working in a group enables children to learn from their peers, learning from and with one another when set a task. They learn to simplify and bring together their ideas and thoughts to arrive at a solution to problems. They learn to listen and respect other opinions and ideas and begin to learn that there may be more than one solution and begin to realised their solution may not always be the best option. Working in a group also helps children to develop their language skills, as they have to make themselves understood, and problem solve, which helps with their higher order thinking skills.…

My Experience Of Being An Effective Collabortor

Effective Collaborator: I was a collaborated in all of my classes when I had to do group projects with my peers. I would have to complete labs, and create powerpoints to present, and work to get an assignment done. Critical Thinker: I used critical thinking to think outside of the box when I had to approach a math problem from another perspective. Engaged Learner: An example of myself being an engaged learner was when I would look deeper into laws and forces in my energy and matter class.…

Reflection On Family Literacy Night

Group work is very different than what I am use to. I am use to working on projects alone and knowing where I stand. I have always been a shy person and have relied on myself for anything I am working on in school. This particular project really brought me out of my comfort zone and showed me it is okay to ask for help. Marvin Wright's Family Literacy Night was different to say the least.…

Diversity In Business

A group of people working on a project brings more ideas to the table and potential diversity. Talking about everyone’s ideas and finding ways to incorporate them together or just listen to others ideas can make your mind think more out of the box. A group of people can be great due to different gender roles in the mix. Having a man 's experience and women 's experience could be very beneficial especially when we have different backgrounds. Also, men and women tend to have different views on things which could bring on a debate and open our minds to thinking of different reasons and explanations.…

Grade 9 Research Paper

Advices for Grade 9 Some people say that the first year of high school is easy and not to stress it but do you think that you can slack off because they give you advice that might not be true. With my 3 pieces of advice, you’ll be won’t just be successful but you won’t be as stressed as “winging” grade 9. Asking teachers for help, making friends and doing your homework are important in high school and can lead into success. Firstly, if you don’t understand something even if it’s just homework, doesn’t mean you can slack off and not get help.…

High School Athletes Persuasive Essay

Teamwork teaches students that they do not have to go through everything by themselves. It gives them an understanding that someone will be there to help them through the hard times and give them an extra boost of…

Math Talk Literature Review

As I began reviewing literature on math talks, I came to find many terms that are synonymous with math talk. Math discussions, discourse, talk moves, and argumentation are among several terms I encountered. All of these, I found to have the same goal: to get all students involved. To give them opportunities to think, communicate, and reason their ideas.…

Reflective Essay: The Power Of Collaboration In School

I believe that collaboration or teamwork is essential for a student to have because of of how beneficial it is now and the future to come. It helps build an individual 's social skills and improve interactions with other people. Collaboration is a great opportunity for the person to express and share their ideas with others and possibly learn from each other. However, some feel that it is tough working with others , but the only way to overcome this is by actually participating in collaborative assignments.. Lastly, working with others can be a learning experience for everyone in the group since different positions and ideas are being shared.…

Related Topics

• Educational psychology

Ready To Get Started?

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings

Learning Through Collaborative Argumentation

• First Online: 30 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• K. G. Srinivasa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1022-8431 4 ,
• Muralidhar Kurni   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3324-893X 5 &
• Kuppala Saritha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5799-2325 6  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

710 Accesses

By interacting with experienced scientists and mathematicians, students can able to enrich their knowledge in the field of science and mathematics. They learn to transform, listen critically, and respond to others constructively when students argue scientifically. Argumentation helps learners deal with different ideas that can deepen their learning. This approach will encourage the students to refine the concepts with others, which helps them understand and work together to refute assumptions. In this approach, the students can question the topic re-state their comments in more technical terms, which helps them build and create the models for clarification. Teachers may promote constructive dialogue in classrooms. The professional development approach can help the instructor address the possible obstacles, such as communicating with the students during their academic activities. This chapter introduces the concept of collaborative learning and its benefits, argumentation in learning environments, preparing the classroom environment for collaborative learning, and evaluating argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments .

Google Scholar  

Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2 (2), 315–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4 .

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. He Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (3), 307–359.

Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based research in education. In Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 73–85).

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition .

Bhagi, S. (2020). Innovative learning strategies . LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/innovative-learning-strategies-sukanya-bhagi/ .

Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1 , 41–56.

Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education , 32 (4), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277 .

Chavez, J., & Romero, M. (2012). Group awareness, learning, and participation in computer supported collaborative learning ( CSCL ). Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 , 3068–3073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.012 .

Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 355–383).

Chinn, C., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (4), 378–411. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3 .

Chinn, C., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 314–332).

Chinn, Clark A., Duschl, R. A., Duncan, R. G., Buckland, L. A., & Pluta, W. J. (2008). A microgenetic classroom study of learning to reason scientifically through modeling and argumentation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences, ICLS ’08 (pp. 1–2).

Chinn, C. A., Angela, M. O., & Theresa, S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69 (1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600650 .

Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (3), 5–22.

Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944 .

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 1–35.

Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32 (1), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371 .

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38 (1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187 .

Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076 .

Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32 (2&3), 135–153.

Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2011). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (3), 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017 .

Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16 (4), 431–473. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604 .

Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist, 48 (1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.749153 .

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Visualization of agreement and discussion processes during computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior Computers, 23 (3), 1105–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.005 .

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition Learning , 7 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9061-5 .

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 785–812).

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38 (2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834 .

Jonassen, D. H., Cho, Y. H., Kwon, K., Henry, H. R., Shen, D., Easter, M., & Lo, J. (2009). Evaluating versus constructing arguments. Journal of Engineering Education, 98 (3), 235–254.

Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58 (4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8 .

Kirschner, P. A., Kreijns, K., Phielix, C., & Fransen, J. (2015). Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31 , 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12084 .

Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? .

Kirschner, P. A., Shum, S. J. B., & Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation .

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19 (3), 335–353.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument .

Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15 (3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1503 .

Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00605 .

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the awareness of collaboration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14 (4), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9002-z .

Macarthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., & Okolo, C. M. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th-century American immigration. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17 (3), 160–172.

Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23 (4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273 .

Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior, 52 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050 .

Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20 (4), 409–432.

Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46 (2), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816 .

Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 157–169.

Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument/counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76 (1), 59–92.

Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28 , 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3 .

Nussbaum, M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30 (1–2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.2190/H8P4-QJUF-JXME-6JD8 .

Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x .

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

Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In Informal reasoning and education (pp. 81–104).

Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design .

Popper, K. (1999). All life is problem solving . Routledge.

Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Jahiel, K. N., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes , 32 (2–3), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596 .

Rigotti, E., & Morasso, S. G. (2009). Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource. In Argumentation and education (pp. 9–66). Springer.

Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2015). The influence of group dynamics on collaborative scientific argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education , 11 (2), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1338a .

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36 , 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134 .

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93 (3), 448–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306 .

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future. Science Education, 92 (3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276 .

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301 .

Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In Argumentation and education (pp. 91–126). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3 .

Sharples, M., Adams, A., Alozie, N., Ferguson, R., Fitzgerald, E., Gaved, M., Mcandrew, P., Means, B., Remold, J., Rienties, B., Roschelle, J., Vogt, K., Whitelock, D., & Yarnall, L. (2015). Innovating pedagogy 2015 .

Shum, S. J. B., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (3), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1203 .

Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., Jaspers, J. G. M., & Janssen, J. (2010). Guiding students’ online complex learning-task behavior through representational scripting. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (5), 927–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.007 .

Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (5), 651–663.

Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40 , 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5 .

Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In Foundations of argumentative text processing (No. 97–116). Amsterdam University Press.

Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (2), 183–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202 .

Suthers, D., & Jones, D. (1997). An architecture for intelligent collaborative educational systems. In 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI&ED ’97) (pp. 55–62).

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument . Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies .

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation . Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Johnson, R. H., Plantin, C., & Willard, C. A. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory .

Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30 , 155–186.

Veerman, A. L. (2000). Computer-supported collaborative learning through argumentation .

von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213 .

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144–188).

Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning .

Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3 (2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128147 .

Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science , 33 (1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4 .

Wineburg, S. S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past .

Zeidler, D. L. (2019). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81 (4), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81 .

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, International Institute of Information Technology, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

K. G. Srinivasa

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Anantha Lakshmi Institute of Technology and Sciences, Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh, India

Muralidhar Kurni

Department of Computer Science Engineering, School of Engineering, Presidency University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Kuppala Saritha

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. G. Srinivasa .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Srinivasa, K.G., Kurni, M., Saritha, K. (2022). Learning Through Collaborative Argumentation. In: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment Methods for Contemporary Learners. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6734-4_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6734-4_3

Published : 30 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-6733-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-6734-4

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Module 9: Academic Argument

The argumentative essay, learning objectives.

• Examine types of argumentative essays

Argumentative Essays

You may have heard it said that all writing is an argument of some kind. Even if you’re writing an informative essay, you still have the job of trying to convince your audience that the information is important. However, there are times you’ll be asked to write an essay that is specifically an argumentative piece.

An argumentative essay is one that makes a clear assertion or argument about some topic or issue. When you’re writing an argumentative essay, it’s important to remember that an academic argument is quite different from a regular, emotional argument. Note that sometimes students forget the academic aspect of an argumentative essay and write essays that are much too emotional for an academic audience. It’s important for you to choose a topic you feel passionately about (if you’re allowed to pick your topic), but you have to be sure you aren’t too emotionally attached to a topic. In an academic argument, you’ll have a lot more constraints you have to consider, and you’ll focus much more on logic and reasoning than emotions.

Figure 1 . When writing an argumentative essay, students must be able to separate emotion based arguments from logic based arguments in order to appeal to an academic audience.

Argumentative essays are quite common in academic writing and are often an important part of writing in all disciplines. You may be asked to take a stand on a social issue in your introduction to writing course, but you could also be asked to take a stand on an issue related to health care in your nursing courses or make a case for solving a local environmental problem in your biology class. And, since argument is such a common essay assignment, it’s important to be aware of some basic elements of a good argumentative essay.

When your professor asks you to write an argumentative essay, you’ll often be given something specific to write about. For example, you may be asked to take a stand on an issue you have been discussing in class. Perhaps, in your education class, you would be asked to write about standardized testing in public schools. Or, in your literature class, you might be asked to argue the effects of protest literature on public policy in the United States.

However, there are times when you’ll be given a choice of topics. You might even be asked to write an argumentative essay on any topic related to your field of study or a topic you feel that is important personally.

Whatever the case, having some knowledge of some basic argumentative techniques or strategies will be helpful as you write. Below are some common types of arguments.

Causal Arguments

• You write about how something has caused something else. For example, you might explore the increase of industrial pollution and the resulting decline of large mammals in the world’s ocean.

Evaluation Arguments

• You can write an argumentative evaluation of something as “good” or “bad,” but you also need to establish the criteria for “good” or “bad.” For example, you might evaluate a children’s book for your Introduction to Educational Theory class, but you would need to establish clear criteria for your evaluation for your audience.

Proposal Arguments

• With this type of writing, you need to propose a solution to a problem. First, you must establish a clear problem and then propose a specific solution to that problem. For example, you might argue for a removal of parking fines on students who use the parking deck on campus.

Narrative Arguments

• For this type of argument, you make your case by telling a story with a clear point related to your argument. For example, you might write a narrative about your negative experiences with standardized testing in order to make a case for reform.

Rebuttal Arguments

• In a rebuttal argument, you build your case around refuting an idea or ideas that have come before. In other words, your starting point is to challenge the ideas of the past. For this type of writing assignment, you have to explain what you are refuting first, and then you can expand on your new ideas or perspectives.

Definition Arguments

• In this type of argument, you use a definition as the starting point for making your case. For example, in a definition argument, you might argue that NCAA basketball players should be defined as professional players and, therefore, should be paid.

Essay Examples

• You can read more about an argumentative essay on the consequences of fast fashion . Read it and look at the comments to recognize strategies and techniques the author uses to convey her ideas.
• In this example, you’ll see a sample argumentative paper from a psychology class submitted in APA format. Key parts of the argumentative structure have been noted for you in the sample.

Link to Learning

For more examples of types of argumentative essays, visit the Argumentative Purposes section of the Excelsior OWL .

Contribute!

Improve this page Learn More

• Argumentative Essay. Provided by : Excelsior OWL. Located at : https://owl.excelsior.edu/rhetorical-styles/argumentative-essay/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Image of a man with a heart and a brain. Authored by : Mohamed Hassan. Provided by : Pixabay. Located at : https://pixabay.com/illustrations/decision-brain-heart-mind-4083469/ . License : Other . License Terms : https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

• JCTC Learning Commons
• Learning Guides
• Writing and Research Process

Writing Academic Essays

• Argumentative Essay
• Introduction
• Classification Essay
• Process Essay
• Compare and Contrast Essay
• Cause and Effect Essay

What is an argumentative essay?

How to write a good argumentative essay, assertive language.

• Reaction Essay
• Grammar This link opens in a new window
• More Resources

Get in Touch

Available Mon - Thurs 10am - 6pm Friday 10am - 2pm

Try Our FAQs

Learning Commons Quick Links

Tutoring - Writing, math and more

Learning Guides - Quick learning

Hours - Find out when we're open

Library Search - Find materials

Databases - Articles and more!

InterLibrary Loan - Request books

Books - Recommended books

eBooks - Thousands of free eBooks

Streaming Video - Learn by watching

Use the Library Search to find books, eBooks, articles, and more! 

You can find Learning Commons information, book recommendations and so much more on JCTC's social media. 

In an argumentative essay a student researches and examines an issue, explaining to the reader why this particular topic is important. The writer takes a clear and definitive side on the controversial issue, backing their thesis with supporting evidence.

Since an argumentative essay is written to be convincing, it is important to acknowledge opposing viewpoints. Gale has an entire database devoted to Opposing Viewpoints  that can help students explore all sides of an argument.  

Here is a short list of topic suggestions for an argumentative essay:

• Should you be able to use a phone in the classroom?
• Wall between Mexico and the United States
• Immigration

When writing an argumentative essay, a student must be assertive without being combative or passive. A combative approach could alienate readers, while passivity can undermine a reader’s confidence in the writer. Instead, challenge opposing viewpoints in a thoughtful manner that builds credibility in an audience, without being condescending.

Combative: The vast majority of Covid 19 hospitalizations and deaths are unvaccinated people. They choose to believe misinformation and conspiracy theories, and until they take the vaccine, they deserve to face the consequences of their actions.

Assertive: According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, all versions of the Covid 19 vaccine are effective at preventing hospitalization and death due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Therefore, it is recommended that everyone capable of receiving the vaccine take it, especially people that are immunocompromised.

Too Passive: In my opinion, it might be a good idea to receive a Covid 19 vaccine.

• << Previous: Cause and Effect Essay
• Next: Reaction Essay >>
• Last Updated: Jan 23, 2024 2:52 PM
• URL: https://jefferson.kctcs.libguides.com/Essay

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 3 strong argumentative essay examples, analyzed.

General Education

Need to defend your opinion on an issue? Argumentative essays are one of the most popular types of essays you’ll write in school. They combine persuasive arguments with fact-based research, and, when done well, can be powerful tools for making someone agree with your point of view. If you’re struggling to write an argumentative essay or just want to learn more about them, seeing examples can be a big help.

After giving an overview of this type of essay, we provide three argumentative essay examples. After each essay, we explain in-depth how the essay was structured, what worked, and where the essay could be improved. We end with tips for making your own argumentative essay as strong as possible.

What Is an Argumentative Essay?

An argumentative essay is an essay that uses evidence and facts to support the claim it’s making. Its purpose is to persuade the reader to agree with the argument being made.

A good argumentative essay will use facts and evidence to support the argument, rather than just the author’s thoughts and opinions. For example, say you wanted to write an argumentative essay stating that Charleston, SC is a great destination for families. You couldn’t just say that it’s a great place because you took your family there and enjoyed it. For it to be an argumentative essay, you need to have facts and data to support your argument, such as the number of child-friendly attractions in Charleston, special deals you can get with kids, and surveys of people who visited Charleston as a family and enjoyed it. The first argument is based entirely on feelings, whereas the second is based on evidence that can be proven.

The standard five paragraph format is common, but not required, for argumentative essays. These essays typically follow one of two formats: the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model.

• The Toulmin model is the most common. It begins with an introduction, follows with a thesis/claim, and gives data and evidence to support that claim. This style of essay also includes rebuttals of counterarguments.
• The Rogerian model analyzes two sides of an argument and reaches a conclusion after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

3 Good Argumentative Essay Examples + Analysis

Below are three examples of argumentative essays, written by yours truly in my school days, as well as analysis of what each did well and where it could be improved.

Argumentative Essay Example 1

Proponents of this idea state that it will save local cities and towns money because libraries are expensive to maintain. They also believe it will encourage more people to read because they won’t have to travel to a library to get a book; they can simply click on what they want to read and read it from wherever they are. They could also access more materials because libraries won’t have to buy physical copies of books; they can simply rent out as many digital copies as they need.

However, it would be a serious mistake to replace libraries with tablets. First, digital books and resources are associated with less learning and more problems than print resources. A study done on tablet vs book reading found that people read 20-30% slower on tablets, retain 20% less information, and understand 10% less of what they read compared to people who read the same information in print. Additionally, staring too long at a screen has been shown to cause numerous health problems, including blurred vision, dizziness, dry eyes, headaches, and eye strain, at much higher instances than reading print does. People who use tablets and mobile devices excessively also have a higher incidence of more serious health issues such as fibromyalgia, shoulder and back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and muscle strain. I know that whenever I read from my e-reader for too long, my eyes begin to feel tired and my neck hurts. We should not add to these problems by giving people, especially young people, more reasons to look at screens.

Second, it is incredibly narrow-minded to assume that the only service libraries offer is book lending. Libraries have a multitude of benefits, and many are only available if the library has a physical location. Some of these benefits include acting as a quiet study space, giving people a way to converse with their neighbors, holding classes on a variety of topics, providing jobs, answering patron questions, and keeping the community connected. One neighborhood found that, after a local library instituted community events such as play times for toddlers and parents, job fairs for teenagers, and meeting spaces for senior citizens, over a third of residents reported feeling more connected to their community. Similarly, a Pew survey conducted in 2015 found that nearly two-thirds of American adults feel that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. People see libraries as a way to connect with others and get their questions answered, benefits tablets can’t offer nearly as well or as easily.

While replacing libraries with tablets may seem like a simple solution, it would encourage people to spend even more time looking at digital screens, despite the myriad issues surrounding them. It would also end access to many of the benefits of libraries that people have come to rely on. In many areas, libraries are such an important part of the community network that they could never be replaced by a simple object.

The author begins by giving an overview of the counter-argument, then the thesis appears as the first sentence in the third paragraph. The essay then spends the rest of the paper dismantling the counter argument and showing why readers should believe the other side.

What this essay does well:

• Although it’s a bit unusual to have the thesis appear fairly far into the essay, it works because, once the thesis is stated, the rest of the essay focuses on supporting it since the counter-argument has already been discussed earlier in the paper.
• This essay includes numerous facts and cites studies to support its case. By having specific data to rely on, the author’s argument is stronger and readers will be more inclined to agree with it.
• For every argument the other side makes, the author makes sure to refute it and follow up with why her opinion is the stronger one. In order to make a strong argument, it’s important to dismantle the other side, which this essay does this by making the author's view appear stronger.
• This is a shorter paper, and if it needed to be expanded to meet length requirements, it could include more examples and go more into depth with them, such as by explaining specific cases where people benefited from local libraries.
• Additionally, while the paper uses lots of data, the author also mentions their own experience with using tablets. This should be removed since argumentative essays focus on facts and data to support an argument, not the author’s own opinion or experiences. Replacing that with more data on health issues associated with screen time would strengthen the essay.
• Some of the points made aren't completely accurate , particularly the one about digital books being cheaper. It actually often costs a library more money to rent out numerous digital copies of a book compared to buying a single physical copy. Make sure in your own essay you thoroughly research each of the points and rebuttals you make, otherwise you'll look like you don't know the issue that well.

Argumentative Essay Example 2

There are multiple drugs available to treat malaria, and many of them work well and save lives, but malaria eradication programs that focus too much on them and not enough on prevention haven’t seen long-term success in Sub-Saharan Africa. A major program to combat malaria was WHO’s Global Malaria Eradication Programme. Started in 1955, it had a goal of eliminating malaria in Africa within the next ten years. Based upon previously successful programs in Brazil and the United States, the program focused mainly on vector control. This included widely distributing chloroquine and spraying large amounts of DDT. More than one billion dollars was spent trying to abolish malaria. However, the program suffered from many problems and in 1969, WHO was forced to admit that the program had not succeeded in eradicating malaria. The number of people in Sub-Saharan Africa who contracted malaria as well as the number of malaria deaths had actually increased over 10% during the time the program was active.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the project was that it set uniform strategies and policies. By failing to consider variations between governments, geography, and infrastructure, the program was not nearly as successful as it could have been. Sub-Saharan Africa has neither the money nor the infrastructure to support such an elaborate program, and it couldn’t be run the way it was meant to. Most African countries don't have the resources to send all their people to doctors and get shots, nor can they afford to clear wetlands or other malaria prone areas. The continent’s spending per person for eradicating malaria was just a quarter of what Brazil spent. Sub-Saharan Africa simply can’t rely on a plan that requires more money, infrastructure, and expertise than they have to spare.

Additionally, the widespread use of chloroquine has created drug resistant parasites which are now plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa. Because chloroquine was used widely but inconsistently, mosquitoes developed resistance, and chloroquine is now nearly completely ineffective in Sub-Saharan Africa, with over 95% of mosquitoes resistant to it. As a result, newer, more expensive drugs need to be used to prevent and treat malaria, which further drives up the cost of malaria treatment for a region that can ill afford it.

Instead of developing plans to treat malaria after the infection has incurred, programs should focus on preventing infection from occurring in the first place. Not only is this plan cheaper and more effective, reducing the number of people who contract malaria also reduces loss of work/school days which can further bring down the productivity of the region.

One of the cheapest and most effective ways of preventing malaria is to implement insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs).  These nets provide a protective barrier around the person or people using them. While untreated bed nets are still helpful, those treated with insecticides are much more useful because they stop mosquitoes from biting people through the nets, and they help reduce mosquito populations in a community, thus helping people who don’t even own bed nets.  Bed nets are also very effective because most mosquito bites occur while the person is sleeping, so bed nets would be able to drastically reduce the number of transmissions during the night. In fact, transmission of malaria can be reduced by as much as 90% in areas where the use of ITNs is widespread. Because money is so scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa, the low cost is a great benefit and a major reason why the program is so successful. Bed nets cost roughly 2 USD to make, last several years, and can protect two adults. Studies have shown that, for every 100-1000 more nets are being used, one less child dies of malaria. With an estimated 300 million people in Africa not being protected by mosquito nets, there’s the potential to save three million lives by spending just a few dollars per person.

Reducing the number of people who contract malaria would also reduce poverty levels in Africa significantly, thus improving other aspects of society like education levels and the economy. Vector control is more effective than treatment strategies because it means fewer people are getting sick. When fewer people get sick, the working population is stronger as a whole because people are not put out of work from malaria, nor are they caring for sick relatives. Malaria-afflicted families can typically only harvest 40% of the crops that healthy families can harvest. Additionally, a family with members who have malaria spends roughly a quarter of its income treatment, not including the loss of work they also must deal with due to the illness. It’s estimated that malaria costs Africa 12 billion USD in lost income every year. A strong working population creates a stronger economy, which Sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of.  

This essay begins with an introduction, which ends with the thesis (that malaria eradication plans in Sub-Saharan Africa should focus on prevention rather than treatment). The first part of the essay lays out why the counter argument (treatment rather than prevention) is not as effective, and the second part of the essay focuses on why prevention of malaria is the better path to take.

• The thesis appears early, is stated clearly, and is supported throughout the rest of the essay. This makes the argument clear for readers to understand and follow throughout the essay.
• There’s lots of solid research in this essay, including specific programs that were conducted and how successful they were, as well as specific data mentioned throughout. This evidence helps strengthen the author’s argument.
• The author makes a case for using expanding bed net use over waiting until malaria occurs and beginning treatment, but not much of a plan is given for how the bed nets would be distributed or how to ensure they’re being used properly. By going more into detail of what she believes should be done, the author would be making a stronger argument.
• The introduction of the essay does a good job of laying out the seriousness of the problem, but the conclusion is short and abrupt. Expanding it into its own paragraph would give the author a final way to convince readers of her side of the argument.

Argumentative Essay Example 3

There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to the way top Olympians earn money.

Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high) salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-upon salary.  

Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who, during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him. Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact, roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer before turning pro.

Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and coaches try to entice athletes to join.

People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money than they are.

They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.

Those against paying college athletes also believe that the athletes are receiving enough benefits already. The top athletes already receive scholarships that are worth tens of thousands per year, they receive free food/housing/textbooks, have access to top medical care if they are injured, receive top coaching, get travel perks and free gear, and can use their time in college as a way to capture the attention of professional recruiters. No other college students receive anywhere near as much from their schools.

People on this side also point out that, while the NCAA brings in a massive amount of money each year, it is still a non-profit organization. How? Because over 95% of those profits are redistributed to its members’ institutions in the form of scholarships, grants, conferences, support for Division II and Division III teams, and educational programs. Taking away a significant part of that revenue would hurt smaller programs that rely on that money to keep running.

While both sides have good points, it’s clear that the negatives of paying college athletes far outweigh the positives. College athletes spend a significant amount of time and energy playing for their school, but they are compensated for it by the scholarships and perks they receive. Adding a salary to that would result in a college athletic system where only a small handful of athletes (those likely to become millionaires in the professional leagues) are paid by a handful of schools who enter bidding wars to recruit them, while the majority of student athletics and college athletic programs suffer or even shut down for lack of money. Continuing to offer the current level of benefits to student athletes makes it possible for as many people to benefit from and enjoy college sports as possible.

This argumentative essay follows the Rogerian model. It discusses each side, first laying out multiple reasons people believe student athletes should be paid, then discussing reasons why the athletes shouldn’t be paid. It ends by stating that college athletes shouldn’t be paid by arguing that paying them would destroy college athletics programs and cause them to have many of the issues professional sports leagues have.

• Both sides of the argument are well developed, with multiple reasons why people agree with each side. It allows readers to get a full view of the argument and its nuances.
• Certain statements on both sides are directly rebuffed in order to show where the strengths and weaknesses of each side lie and give a more complete and sophisticated look at the argument.
• Using the Rogerian model can be tricky because oftentimes you don’t explicitly state your argument until the end of the paper. Here, the thesis doesn’t appear until the first sentence of the final paragraph. That doesn’t give readers a lot of time to be convinced that your argument is the right one, compared to a paper where the thesis is stated in the beginning and then supported throughout the paper. This paper could be strengthened if the final paragraph was expanded to more fully explain why the author supports the view, or if the paper had made it clearer that paying athletes was the weaker argument throughout.

3 Tips for Writing a Good Argumentative Essay

Now that you’ve seen examples of what good argumentative essay samples look like, follow these three tips when crafting your own essay.

#1: Make Your Thesis Crystal Clear

The thesis is the key to your argumentative essay; if it isn’t clear or readers can’t find it easily, your entire essay will be weak as a result. Always make sure that your thesis statement is easy to find. The typical spot for it is the final sentence of the introduction paragraph, but if it doesn’t fit in that spot for your essay, try to at least put it as the first or last sentence of a different paragraph so it stands out more.

Also make sure that your thesis makes clear what side of the argument you’re on. After you’ve written it, it’s a great idea to show your thesis to a couple different people--classmates are great for this. Just by reading your thesis they should be able to understand what point you’ll be trying to make with the rest of your essay.

#2: Show Why the Other Side Is Weak

When writing your essay, you may be tempted to ignore the other side of the argument and just focus on your side, but don’t do this. The best argumentative essays really tear apart the other side to show why readers shouldn’t believe it. Before you begin writing your essay, research what the other side believes, and what their strongest points are. Then, in your essay, be sure to mention each of these and use evidence to explain why they’re incorrect/weak arguments. That’ll make your essay much more effective than if you only focused on your side of the argument.

#3: Use Evidence to Support Your Side

Remember, an essay can’t be an argumentative essay if it doesn’t support its argument with evidence. For every point you make, make sure you have facts to back it up. Some examples are previous studies done on the topic, surveys of large groups of people, data points, etc. There should be lots of numbers in your argumentative essay that support your side of the argument. This will make your essay much stronger compared to only relying on your own opinions to support your argument.

Summary: Argumentative Essay Sample

Argumentative essays are persuasive essays that use facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. Most argumentative essays follow either the Toulmin model or the Rogerian model. By reading good argumentative essay examples, you can learn how to develop your essay and provide enough support to make readers agree with your opinion. When writing your essay, remember to always make your thesis clear, show where the other side is weak, and back up your opinion with data and evidence.

What's Next?

Do you need to write an argumentative essay as well? Check out our guide on the best argumentative essay topics for ideas!

You'll probably also need to write research papers for school. We've got you covered with 113 potential topics for research papers.

Your college admissions essay may end up being one of the most important essays you write. Follow our step-by-step guide on writing a personal statement to have an essay that'll impress colleges.

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

• Writing Worksheets and Other Writing Resources
• Thesis, Analysis, & Structure

Suggestions for Developing Argumentative Essays

About the slc.

• Our Mission and Core Values

1. Select an arguable topic, preferably one which interests, puzzles, or appeals to you.

Make sure your topic is neither too broad--something which warrants a dissertation--nor too limited. Decide what your goals are for the paper. What is your purpose? What opinion, view, or idea do you want to prove? Try to articulate your purpose clearly  before  you begin writing. If you cannot state your purpose clearly, try to freewrite about your topic.

2. Take a position on your topic, and form a thesis statement.

Your thesis must be arguable; it must assert or deny something about your topic. To be arguable, a thesis must have some probability of being true. It should not, however, be generally accepted as true; it must be a statement with which people may disagree. Keep in mind that a thesis contains both an observation and an opinion:

A good way to test the strength of your thesis is to see if it yields a strong antithesis.

Common thesis pitfalls:

• A thesis expressed as a fragment.
• A thesis which is too broad.
• A thesis worded as a question. (Usually the answer to the question yields the thesis)
• A thesis which includes extraneous information.
• A thesis which begins with I think or in my opinion.
• A thesis which deals with a stale or trite issue.
• A thesis which contains words which lead to faulty generalizations (all, none, always, only, everyone, etc.)

Thesis writing tips:

• A thesis evolves as you work with your topic. Brainstorm, research, talk, and think about your topic before settling on a thesis. If you are having trouble formulating a thesis, begin freewriting about your topic. Your freewrite may suggest a workable thesis.
• During the writing process, consider your thesis a  working thesis  and be willing to modify and re-focus it as you draft and revise your paper.
• Copy your working thesis on an index card and keep it in front of you as you research and write. Having your thesis in plain view may help focus your writing.

3. Consider your audience.

Plan your paper with a specific audience in mind. Who are your readers? Are they a definable group--disinterested observers, opponents of your point of view, etc.? Perhaps you are writing to your classmates. Ask your professor or GSI who you should consider your target audience. If you are not certain of your audience, direct your argument to a general audience.

4. Present clear and convincing evidence.

Strong essays consist of  reasons  supported by  evidence .  Reasons  can be thought of as the main points supporting your claim or thesis. Often they are the answers to the question, "Why do you make that claim?" An easy way to think of  reasons  is to see them as "because phrases." In order to validate your reasons and make your argument successful, support your reasons with ample evidence.

The St. Martin's Guide to Writing  (Axelrod & Cooper, 2nd ed., New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988) lists the following forms of evidence:

• authorities
• textual evidence

For most college papers, you will include evidence you have gathered from various sources and texts. Make sure you document your evidence properly. When using evidence, make sure you (1) introduce it properly, and (2) explain its significance. Do not assume that your evidence will speak for itself--that your readers will glean from your evidence that which you want them to glean. Explain the importance of each piece of evidence-- how  it elucidates or supports your point,  why  it is significant. Build evidence into your text, and use it strategically to prove your points.

In addition to using evidence, thoughtful writers anticipate their readers'  counterarguments  Counterarguments include objections, alternatives, challenges, or questions to your argument. Imagine readers responding to your argument as it unfolds. How might they react? A savvy writer will anticipate and address counterarguments. A writer can address counterarguments by  acknowledging ,  accommodating , and/or  refuting  them.

5. Draft your essay.

As is the case with any piece of writing, you should take your argumentative essay through multiple drafts. When writing and revising your drafts, make sure you:

• provide ample  evidence , presented logically and fairly
• deal with the  opposing point of view
• pay particular attention to the organization of your essay. Make sure its structure suits your topic and audience
• address and correct any  fallacies  of logic
• include proper  transitions  to allow your reader to follow your argument

6. Edit your draft.

After you have written a developed draft, take off your writer's hat and put on your reader's hat. Evaluate your essay carefully and critically. Exchange a draft of your essay with classmates to get their feedback. Carefully revise your draft based on your assessment of it and suggestions from your peers. For self-assessment and peer response to your draft, you may want to use a peer editing sheet. A peer editing sheet will guide you and your peers by asking specific questions about your text (i.e., What is the thesis of this essay? Is it arguable? Does the writer include ample evidence? Is the structure suitable for the topic and the audience?).

You may also want to avail yourself of the Writing  Drop-In Tutoring  or  By-Appointment Tutoring  at the  Student Learning Center .

Luisa Giulianetti 
Student Learning Center, University of California, Berkeley
©1996 UC Regents

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Argumentative Essay On Collaborative Learning

According to Dr. Banerjee (2015) students gives more ideas about the task assigned to them in collaborative learning process. Each student has a very important role in having a collaborative work. Learning is what students “do” and not what they “get” as passive receivers. The teachers are the facilitators of the students and not the “giver” of knowledge . Through this process the students learn not by being fed the information, but rather giving their own insights on a certain topic as well as the insight of others. One of the benefits of Collaborative Learning is the vast difference of skills between all members. This would mean that diversity is an eminent part of Collaborative Learning with each member having specific strengths and weaknesses. This would prove to be a challenge as diversity of skill sets would also mean a diverse set of opinions and insights. In order for the collaborative group to succeed in a task, all members must be willing to accept the insights of the other members. According to Hsiang Ann Liao (2014) collaborative learning has been found to benefit students in various disciplines. Moreover, in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics literature, it was noted that minority students benefited the most from collaborative learning. This statement suits our study. The students in …show more content…

(1995) conducted a study about Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking, The idea of Collaborative learning in, the gathering and blending of Students with the end goal of accomplishing a scholastic objective, has been generally inquired about and pushed all through the expert writing. The expression "Collaborative learning" refers to a guideline technique in which Students at different execution levels cooperate in little groupings toward a shared objective. The students are in charge of each other 's learning and also on their own. Along these lines, the achievement of one Student causes different Students to be

Collaborating With Team Members To Improve Teaching And Learning

Collaborating with Team Members to Improve Teaching and Learning Morgan Battin Western Governors University D188: The Collaborative Leader A. INSTRUCTIONAL GOAL In my fifth-grade science class, the instructional goal is to teach students to be able to identify real-world examples of symbiosis and explain how each creature in the relationship is affected. The instructional goal will support student learning and thinking through inquiry, discussion, and justification of responses as students work through the symbiosis sort. The instructional goal supports engagement because students are working with real world concepts, using technology, and have a choice of who or how they work with and where they work. 1.

Argumentative Essay: Long Way Down

Ahmed. khafagy Mrs. Brazeau LA 8 22 February 2023 Argumentative essay “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind”-Mahayana Ghandi. In the novel Long Way Down by Jason Reynolds, Wills brother Shawn gets shot, Will follows the rules that his brother told him and tries to get revenge. Will enters an elevator where he meets six people that talk to him about revenge.

Community College Argumentative Essay

Today’s education system seems to be a problem in America because the society feels they are not receiving a fair opportunity to succeed. Funding College can have a negative outcome because colleges may become overcrowded and community college colleague’s wages may decrease. Degrees wouldn’t mean as much and taxes may increase. Community college being funded by the government can also have a negative impact on universities because everyone would go to a community before going to a university which could cause many problems. Funding college would add to the nation’s debt because the government would have to improve schools by reconstructing it, so more people would be able to attend the school.

Video Analysis: The Power Of 2 By Marilyn Friend

One strategy that reinforces learning through collaboration is team teaching. In the classroom both teachers are positioned at the front of the classroom with different responsibilities. For example, one teacher may write notes, while the other delivers large group instruction. Through team teaching, both educators can bounce ideas off one another or show students two different methods of solving a problem. This strategy is most effective in a coteaching partnership emphasizing give and take.

1.5 Explain How To Overcome Barriers To Learning In Groups

The purpose of group learning and development is to ensure that all learning styles are catered for and the ultimate goal of sharing knowledge is achieved. When using a group to deliver something new each individual can call on a fellow participant to confirm understanding. 1.2 Explain why delivery of learning and development must reflect group dynamics When delivering to a group it is important to consider, what is the normal behaviour within the group? Who plays what role?

Free Education Argumentative Essay

In the world today about 264 plus million children are being denied access to free education, according to Global Campaign for Education-civil society movement. Up to 80 percent of the world's out of school 5 to 18 year olds live in the sixty-five countries that a similar, more modern organization, Global Partnership for Education, is associated with. These are the children that are going to be leading and populating their own countries eventually so if have no education, how can they make logical decisions for the benefit of their country and the world? Education is globally recognized as a human right according to a number of international conventions. In all highly developed countries most people would claim education should be free for children worldwide yet a quarter of a billion children are denied education.

Teamwork In Health Care Essay

INTRODUCTION The word ‘team’ can be defined as a group of people working together towards a common goal. A team also generally is known as a group of people with different skills and different tasks, who works together on a common project, services, or goal. Then, the important thing in teamwork is ‘collaboration’, which is the act of working effectively with others to achieve a common goal. Collaboration acts as the lifeblood in the team, even the team is not large enough, but the collaboration is required.

Special Education Philosophy

My Classroom Environment Ideally, my classroom would be a strong community of interactive learners. I would like to use cooperative learning to engage students at various academic levels. This would also give me the opportunity to employ direct teaching for those students that need it while others work in groups. Groups also allows me to use peer tutoring and help build an inclusive classroom by integrating groups (Hallahan et al., 2012).

Argumentative Essay On College Education

Education plays a crucial role in our life. Education is a part of our life that we can 't ignore. To have a better future, every one of us desires the quality education that can give us a beautiful and happy life. As a part of this, we write competitive exams to pursue our favorite courses in our dream colleges. The ways to reach this objective may differ but there is one thing common for every aspirant.

Pros And Cons Of Cooperative Learning

Use of group goals or group rewards augments the achievement outcomes of co-operative learning if and only if the group rewards are based on the individual learning of all group members (Slavin, 1995). Most often, this means that team scores are computed based on average scores on tests/quizzes which all teammates take individually, without teammates’ help. For instance, in Student Teams Achievement Divisions, or STAD (Slavin, 1994), students work in mixed-ability groups to master material initially presented by the teacher. Following this, students take individual tests/quizzes on the material and the teams may receive grades based on the degree to which team members have improved over their own past performance. For this, it is essential to ensure that all team members have learned, they explain concepts to each other, help each other practice and encourage each other to achieve.

Essay On Didactic Method Of Teaching

[47] argue that students report increased team skills as a result of cooperative learning. This is as Panitz [48] cites a number of benefits of cooperative learning for developing the interpersonal skills required for effective teamwork. As observed, there is broad empirical support for the central premise of cooperative learning, that cooperation is more effective than competition for promoting a range of positive learning outcomes. These results include enhanced academic achievement and a number of attitudinal outcomes. In addition, cooperative learning provides a natural environment in which to enhance interpersonal skills and there are rational arguments and evidence to show the effectiveness of cooperation in this

Argumentative Essay On The Internet

An Argumentative Essay Children these days are more involved in social media and technology. You can barely find any child who does not know how to use a phone or the internet. They spend most of their time watching YouTube videos or browsing the net instead of playing with other children out in the open.

Argumentative Essay On Education

Declared in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948), education is recognized as a fundamental human right and a key component contributing to the development of societies. Yet there are many people on earth have not been able to get educated. In order to solve the problem, it is proposed that all education (including primary, secondary and higher education) should be free all over world and governments should be those funding the tuition fees. This paper critically hightlights the significances and also rebut the objection of free education. Before further analysis, the writer is going to point out some definitions and add facts and figures.

Argumentative Essay On Education And Education

Education is a huge issue that not only affects kids and their parents, but their community as well. Schools teach young kids to become the next generation of engineers, technicians, and political leaders, working towards creating a better future for their country and their community. Teachers have the unique job of creating the future leaders of the world, and preparing them for both college and life beyond, by putting a special push towards math and science, the so-called “foundation” of our society. The hard truth is, no one can be anything they want to be. Some people are simply not cut out to be engineers, doctors, or psychologists.

Essay On 21st Century Classroom

It is one of the most effective forms of learning. Working in isolation is very restrictive and gives a slow progress. Critical thinking is also encouraged when learners work in groups. Through collaborative activities such as writing, debates, group projects and more they learn to work together and to respect each other contribution. The traditional relationship between student and teacher is changed with collaborative learning.

More about Argumentative Essay On Collaborative Learning

Related topics.

• Educational psychology

How to Write an Argumentative Essay Outline

An argumentative essay is a piece of writing that uses logical evidence and empirical data to convince readers of a particular position on a topic. Because of its reliance on structure and planning, the first step in writing one is often drafting a solid argumentative essay outline. 

Of course, drafting an argumentative essay outline can be just as daunting as actually writing one. Choosing topics is one thing, but organizing your thesis , research, reasoning, and conclusion is a whole other endeavor—and that’s all before beginning the first draft! 

So in this quick guide, we explain how to make an effective argumentative essay outline, covering all three major formats: Classical (Aristotelian), Rogerian, and Toulmin. We’ll also include argumentative essay outline examples and templates to help you understand what works. 

Communicate with confidence. Grammarly helps you communicate effectively Write with Grammarly

Table of contents

How is an argumentative essay structured? 

How to create an argumentative essay outline

Classical argumentative essay outline template, rogerian argumentative essay outline template, toulmin argumentative essay outline template, argumentative essay faqs.

An argumentative essay uses facts, data, and logical reasoning to substantiate a specific stance on any given topic. They are typically structured to “build an argument,” with a clear thesis statement , unambiguous conclusion, and as much evidential support as needed.  

While all seven types of essays follow the same introduction-body-conclusion structure, argumentative essays tend to be more complex to fit all the necessary components of a convincing argument. For example, you may want to dissect opposing points of view to strengthen your own argument, but where would you put that section? Before your argument? After? Intermingled throughout the essay with each new piece of evidence? 

There’s no one right way to structure an argumentative essay; it depends on your topic, opposing viewpoints, and the readers, among other things. In fact, to accommodate different types of argumentative essay styles, three methods have emerged as the go-to formats: Classical (Aristotelian), Rogerian, and Toulmin, explained below.  

No matter the format or topic, a strong argumentative essay outline makes it easier to organize your thoughts and present your case in the best possible way. So before you get down to the actual essay writing , take a little time to prepare what you want to say in an outline. 

Knowing how to write an outline is just half the battle. Because an argumentative essay outline requires extra structure and organization, it often requires more extensive planning than the standard essay outline . After all, the goal is to present the best argument for your topic, so you need to make sure each section is in the optimal place. 

As mentioned, there are three main options for how to structure an argumentative essay. Before we dive into the details, let’s look at an overview of each so you can decide which one best fits your essay. 

Classical (Aristotelian)

When to use it: straightforward and direct arguments

The most forthright approach, the Classical or Aristotelian format is closest to traditional essay structures. It follows a simple layout: explain your argument, explain your opposition’s argument, and then present your evidence, all the while relying on credibility ( ethos ), emotion ( pathos ), and reasoning ( logos ) to influence the reader. 

When to use it: both sides make valid arguments; your readers are sympathetic to the opposing position

The Rogerian format gives ample respect to opposing stances, making it a great “middle-ground” approach for representing both sides. This method is ideal if your thesis is a compromise between conflicting positions or an attempt to unify them. 

Likewise, this format is best if you’re writing for readers who are already biased toward an opposing position, such as if you’re arguing against societal norms. 

When to use it: complicated arguments with multiple facets; rebuttals and counterarguments

The Toulmin method is a deep analysis of a single argument. Given its methodical and detailed nature, it works best for breaking down a complicated thesis into digestible portions. 

The Toulmin method is rather nitpicky in a very systematic way. That makes it an ideal format if your essay is a rebuttal or counterargument to another essay—you’re able to dissect and disprove your opposition point by point while offering a more reasonable alternative.  

Aristotle had a gift for explaining things clearly and logically, and the Aristotelian argumentative essay structure leans into that. Also known as Classical or Classic, the Aristotelian format is the most straightforward: the writer presents their argument first and then refutes the opposing argument. 

Let’s look at the details in this argumentative essay outline example for the Classical or Aristotelian format. 

I. Introduction

A. Open with a hook, something to keep the reader interested enough to read until the conclusion (known as exordium ) B. Give any background information or context necessary to understand the topic (known as narratio )  C. Provide a thesis statement explaining your stance and why you feel that way (known as proposito and partitio )

II. First reason 

A. Start with the least controversial reason to support your argument, explaining your point clearly as an overview 1. First evidential support of your reason (known as confirmatio )

2. Second evidential support of your reason, then third, and so on

B. Summarize your first reason again and tie it together with evidential support 

III. Second reason, etc. 

A. Continue to list your reasons in the same format as the first. List your reasons from least to most controversial 

IV. First opposing point of view

A. Explain the reasoning of the opposing side. Point out their defenses and evidence—what would they say if they were writing the essay?  1. Point out weaknesses and inconsistencies in their argument

2. Refute their points with evidential support (known as refutatio )

3. Reinforce your position as the more reasonable position

V. Second opposing point of view, etc. 

A. Continue to present and refute opposing points of view in the same format as the first 

VI. Conclusion

A. Reiterate your position and thesis statement, drawing on your strongest evidential support and rebuttals of opposing points (known as peroratio ) B. Wrap everything up with a thought-provoking ending or call to action (a suggestion you want the reader to take) 

Of all formats, Rogerian gives the most attention to opposing arguments. Its goal is to create a middle ground between two arguments, pointing out the validity of each and finding a way to unify them as one. If positions on a particular topic are too polarized or unable to coexist, this format won’t work. 

Let’s take a closer look at the Rogerian argumentative essay outline example below and notice the concessions for opposing points of view. 

A. State the problem that needs to be solved and any context necessary for understanding it B. Explain the ideal solutions from your position as well as the ideal solutions from opposing positions (and point out any overlap) C. Make your thesis statement

II. Summarize the opposing position

A. Summarize the opposition’s point of view respectfully; consider their defense and reasoning  1. Present evidential support for the opposing position

2. Comment on or refute their support

B. Follow the same format for additional opposing points of view

III. Validate the opposing position

A. Show that you understand and/or sympathize with the opposing position 1. Explain the context and reasoning behind your opposition’s perspective

2. Elaborate on the evidence and data from opposing positions

B. Affirm the areas in which you agree with the opposition

IV. Present your position

A. Summarize your first reason for holding your position 1. Present your first piece of evidential support

2. Present your second piece of evidential support, and so on

B. Summarize your second reason for holding your position, and so on 

V. Bring both sides together (compromise)

A. Consider which aspects from each argument are most reasonable B. Propose a compromise that combines the best elements from each position

A. Reaffirm your respect for the opposing point of view B. Reiterate the areas in which the opposition can benefit from your argument and vice versa C. Summarize the earlier compromise and, if possible, end on a positive note

Stephen Toulmin’s original purpose was to analyze the nature of arguments, but the application of his teachings has evolved into an argumentative essay format, especially for challenging existing arguments. It focuses on the six elements that make up a good argument: claim (thesis), grounds (data and reasons), warrants, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals. 

The argumentative essay outline example below shows the recommended order in which to put these elements: 

A. Open with a hook, if you can, to garner interest B. Explain the topic and its necessary context C. Make your thesis statement

II. Present the grounds (hard evidence) to validate your thesis

A. Present your first evidential support of data or logical reasons  B. Present your second evidential support of data or logical reasons, and so on 

III. Explain your first warrant (justification for your thesis)

A. Explain how the warrant relates back to your thesis B. Provide backing to support your warrant (could be more evidence or data or just logical reasoning) C. List any qualifiers that undermine or limit your warrant—the idea is to acknowledge any weaknesses in your own argument

IV. Explain your second warrant, and so on

A. Continue to explain your individual warrants as above 

V. Discuss opposition

A. Explain the first opposing point of view 1. Discuss the opposition fairly and transparently

2. Explain your rebuttal to defend your thesis

B. Explain the second opposing point of view, and so on 

A. Connect all your warrants and data together  B. Reiterate the opposing position and your rebuttals C. Draw a conclusion to make your final claim and reaffirm your thesis

What is an argumentative essay?

An argumentative essay is a short, nonfiction piece of writing that uses logical evidence and empirical data to convince the reader of a certain point of view. 

Argumentative essays typically include an explanation of the writer’s position (thesis), evidence supporting that thesis, opposing points of view, and rebuttals against that opposition. The order in which these sections are presented, however, depends on the format. 

What are some common ways to organize an argumentative essay outline?

The most straightforward approach to an argumentative essay outline is to first present your position, including the evidence and reasoning to back it up, and then address the opposing points of view. However, the more complex the topic, the more layers must be added to the outline. 

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10175048

Argumentation in collaboration: the impact of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on secondary school students’ argumentative writing

Yana landrieu.

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, Ghent, Ghent, 9000 Belgium

Fien De Smedt

Hilde van keer, bram de wever.

This paper has investigated the importance of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on (a) argumentative writing performance and (b) self-efficacy for writing of secondary school students. This intervention study additionally aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of alternating between individual and collaborative writing throughout the writing process (planning collaboratively, writing individually, revising collaboratively, and rewriting individually). A cluster randomized control trial (CRT) design was opted for. To investigate the effect of the intervention on secondary school students’ writing performance and self-efficacy for writing, multilevel analyses were performed. It was found that the presence of explicit instruction in combination with collaborative writing is positively related to argumentative writing performance and self-efficacy for writing. Alternating between individual and collaborative writing was not significantly different from collaborating throughout all phases of the writing process. More in-depth research into the quality of collaboration is, however, needed to gain insight into the interaction processes and writing processes that take place during collaborative writing.

Writing is a very useful tool for learning, for expressing and exchanging ideas and feelings, and for participating in society (De Smedt et al., 2019 ; Graham et al., 2013 ). Despite the key relevance of writing in contemporary society, it is agreed that the education system fails to successfully promote students’ writing performance. For instance, research in the U.S. showed that only 27% of twelfth’ graders reached a level above “basic” writing performance (NCES US national center for education statistics, 2012). In Flanders, where the present study was conducted, secondary school students also experience difficulties when writing texts (Nederlandse Taalunie, 2015). An advisory report of Nederlandse Taalunie (2015) indicated that writing scores were very low in all schools that participated in the study. Additionally, in more than half of the participating schools, writing lessons were inadequately and poorly developed (Nederlandse Taalunie, 2015).

The situation is even more worrying when considering argumentative writing performance (Ferretti & Lewis, 2013 ). Argumentative writing is important to clarify our thoughts, to stimulate critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and to persuade others of a certain opinion (Granado-Peinado et al., 2019a ; Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007 ; Varghese & Abraham, 1998 ). However, argumentative writing is intellectually challenging and many students have difficulties with it (Ferretti & Fan, 2016 ). Students’ argumentative texts rarely acknowledge opposing positions, consider the merits of different views, or attempt to systematically integrate or rebut alternative perspectives (Ferretti & Lewis, 2013 ). Recent research also showed that argumentative texts are often weak and not factually accurate, have a weak level of persuasiveness, include errors involving the mechanics of writing, and often do not include counterarguments nor rebuttals (Landrieu et al., 2022 ).

Complexity of the writing process

The difficulties regarding students’ writing and argumentative writing in particular are related to the fact that the writing process is very complex. The complexity is theoretically framed in the Writing Within Community (WWC) model developed by Graham ( 2018a , 2018b ). In the present study, the WWC model was used as the overall theoretical framework because of its emphasis on writing as a social activity, situated within different contexts involving writers, collaborators, readers, mentors, and teachers (Graham, 2018, p. 259). Given the dialogic nature of argumentation and the focus of the WWC model on the central role of communication in writing communities, this model is especially relevant for framing argumentative writing.

Besides the emphasis on writing as a social activity, the WWC model also highlighted the cognitive mechanisms that each individual in the writing community needs in order to write (Graham, 2018b ). To be a good writer, it is essential to master the following: writing knowledge (e.g., knowledge about text genres), transcription skills (e.g., spelling), self-regulation skills (e.g., monitoring), and writing strategies (e.g., planning, writing, revising, and rewriting) (De Smedt et al., 2019 ; Flower & Hayes, 1981 ; Graham et al., 2013 ; Graham & Harris, 2000 ). According to the WWC model, writing is emotionally charged and emotions make writers want to do things, or not want to do things. Further, if students believe that they are good writers, writing tasks might result in greater effort and persistence (Graham, 2018b ). Self-efficacy, therefore, plays an important role in the writing process, which is also reflected in the WWC model (Graham, 2018b ).

Instructional approaches to foster argumentative writing

One approach for improving secondary school students’ argumentative writing is to provide instruction designed to enhance this capability (Graham et al., 2016 ; Graham & Perin, 2007 ; Van Drie et al., 2018 ). Research in this respect points at two promising instructional approaches that can potentially enhance both argumentative writing performance and self-efficacy for writing of students, namely explicit writing instruction and collaborative writing.

Explicit writing instruction

Research by Ferretti and Lewis ( 2013 ), Graham and colleagues ( 2016 ), Granado-Peinado and colleagues ( 2019a ), and Van Drie and colleagues ( 2018 ) indicated that explicit writing instruction is effective for fostering students’ argumentative writing performance. Research in this respect distinguished between (a) explicit instruction on genre knowledge regarding writing argumentative texts and (b) on explicit instruction on writing strategies (Driscoll et al., 2020 ; Graham & Perin, 2007 ).

Explicit instruction on genre knowledge is necessary in order to write texts in a certain text genre (Graham et al., 2013 ). Genre knowledge is a resource to understand, engage and shape different types of writing (Driscoll et al., 2020 ). In the context of argumentative writing, students are taught how to construct arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals (Landrieu et al., 2022 ).

Explicit instruction on writing strategies involves explicitly and systematically teaching students strategies for planning, writing, revising, and rewriting text (Graham & Perin, 2007 a). The WWC model (Graham, 2018b ) postulates that writers use different strategies to deal with limited cognitive capacity when writing. One of the most effective approaches (effect size of 0.82) to lower this cognitive load and to achieve higher writing outcomes, is explicitly teaching writing strategies (Bouwer et al., 2018 ; Graham, 2018b ; Graham & Perin, 2007 ).

Explicit instruction not only provides a mechanism for enhancing students’ argumentative writing performance, but prior research also demonstrated that it can have a positive impact on secondary school students’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding writing (Bruning & Kauffman, 2016 ). Self-efficacy is defined as beliefs in the capability to successfully perform in a particular domain (Bandura, 2006 ), and students with a low sense of writing efficacy are likely to perform poorly when writing (Schunk, 2003 ). As a result, an important goal when teaching students how to write is to enhance their efficacy for writing, as self-efficacy for writing is an important predictor of writing performance (Graham et al., 2018 ). Given the importance of including self-efficacy for writing in educational research, self-efficacy for writing is therefore incorporated in the present study.

Collaborative writing

Since the WWC model of Graham ( 2018b ) emphasized that writing almost always involves multiple people, and therefore takes place within a writing community, collaborative writing provides opportunities for students to work together as they engage in a writing process (Graham, 2018b ; Storch, 2005 ). A meta-analysis by Graham and Perin ( 2007 a) demonstrated that collaborative writing can have a positive and substantial impact on the quality of secondary students’ writing (effect size = 0.75). This was illustrated in a study by Harlena and colleagues ( 2019 ), which found that collaborative writing improved not only secondary school students’ writing, but also increased their involvement and their enthusiasm during the writing process.

Collaborating with peers is especially pertinent for argumentative writing in secondary education, since these students are able to engage quite well in effective and elaborate face-to-face argumentation (Felton & Herko, 2004). Additionally, as argumentation has a dialogic nature (Ferretti et al., 2000 ), the advantages of collaboration with peers in argumentative writing may even be greater than those gained in other genres (Cuevas et al., 2016 ; Ferretti & Lewis, 2013 ). Prior research has demonstrated that during collaborative writing students may combine different perspectives on a certain topic and therefore practice perspective taking with peers (Ferretti & Lewis, 2013 ; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007 ). In their review, Bouwer and colleagues ( 2022 ) highlighted that collaborative writing supported students’ learning from each other by talking and discussing with a peer, which ultimately helped students apply writing strategies. Therefore, collaborative writing was the second instructional approach that was incorporated in the present study.

Unfortunately, some students are not successful at working together and as a result require guidance and instruction to do so (Dillenbourg, 2002 ; Graham, 2018b ; Thomas, 2013 ). According to Graham ( 2018b ) and Morphy and Graham ( 2012 ), collaborative writing involves students working together to plan, write, revise, and rewrite their compositions. As Rummel and Spada ( 2005 ) indicated, successful collaboration should involve a balanced combination of individual and collaborative activities. They claim that there should be enough time for individual work allowing students to use and include their own individual knowledge to finish a task. In line with this, Scheuer and colleagues ( 2014 ) divided the collaborative, argumentative writing process into four different phases. Each phase of the process was predetermined as either collaborative or individual work: (a) individual preparation (i.e., individual reading and analysing source texts), (b) collaborative discussion on each of the source texts, (c) collaborative discussion of the relations (e.g., conflicts or agreements) between both source texts, and (d) collaboratively agreeing on a joint position and integrating that position in one joint text written by both authors. By guiding students through the different phases of individual and collaborative writing, a higher number of elaborative moves and a more positive learning process was achieved (Scheuer et al., 2014 ). This study elaborates on the study of Scheuer and colleagues ( 2014 ) by also dividing the collaboration process into four different phases, however, differently implemented. Multiple studies have examined the (dis)advantages of writing collaboratively versus individually during each phase of the writing process. Below, we provide a review of these studies in writing and organize them according to writing processes.

Studies comparing individual and collaborative planning have reported mixed results (McDonough & De Vleeschauwer, 2019 ). Research by Rahayu and colleagues ( 2020 ) reported positive results, as they found that collaborative planning was an effective method to use in writing classes to enhance writing performance and motivation. Further, a study by McDonough and De Vleeschauwer ( 2019 ) reported that planning collaboratively can result in better accuracy and complexity in students’ written texts. However, that same study also reported that individual planning resulted in higher analytic ratings for writing quality. Because many students have difficulties with accuracy in their texts, at least some of the prior investigations support having students plan their texts collaboratively instead of individually (Landrieu et al., 2022 ; McDonough & De Vleeschauwer, 2019 ). This study incorporates these findings and enables students to plan their text collaboratively.

Writing and rewriting

Storch ( 2005 ) found that pairs of students produced shorter but better texts in terms of task fulfilment, grammatical accuracy, and complexity then individual writers. However, these results were not statistically significant, probably because of the small sample of students ( n  = 23) included in the study. In contrast, Wigglesworth and Storch ( 2009 ) found that collaborative writing did improve text accuracy, but did not affect fluency and complexity of written texts. Given the mixed results in educational research, we explore both approaches (namely individual and collaborative writing and rewriting) in the present study.

While revising can occur at any stage of the writing process, it often involves evaluating and determining what needs to be changed in a text. When students revise text together in a thoughtful manner, it can have multiple benefits, including preventing free-riding by one student (i.e., one student benefitting from the work of another student), improving communication between peers, and ultimately positively affecting the quality of the written text (Sridharan et al., 2018 ). Given the positive results in educational literature on collaboratively revising, this study has students revise their texts collaboratively.

Inconsistency in educational research

At this point, it is still unclear during which phases of the writing process students should work collaborative and when they should work individually. Prior research by Wang and colleagues ( 2011 ) indicated that students who were combining collaborative and individual work reached higher learning outcomes than students who worked individually. However, students who combined collaborative and individual work, reached lower learning outcomes than students who worked collaboratively throughout the whole learning process (Wang et al., 2011 ). A study by Hermann and colleagues ( 2001 ) found that, on the one hand, individual accountability and individual domain knowledge were essential for successful collaborative learning (Olsen et al., 2019 ; Slavin, 1989 ), but on the other hand, students who wrote collaboratively tended to make less errors, asked for less help than students who worked individually and benefitted more from fruitful discussions (Hausmann et al., 2008 ; Olsen et al., 2019 ).

Impact of collaborative writing on self-efficacy for writing

Prior research indicated that collaborative writing can also have a positive impact on the self-efficacy of students (Bruning & Kauffman, 2016 ; De Bernardi & Antolini, 2007 ; Paquette, 2009 ) noted collaborative writing can strengthen self-efficacy for writing by (a) offering models for decision making, (b) exposing students to new perspectives on writing, and (c) providing greater chances for successful performance. Especially for argumentative writing, research of De Bernardi and Antolini ( 2007 ) pointed out the importance and usefulness of collaborative writing since the collaboration leads to higher intrinsic motivation, decreased anxiety about the activity, and a higher sense of self-efficacy for writing.

Complementarity of explicit instruction and collaborative writing

Explicit instruction and collaborative writing are two instructional approaches that are both effective in enhancing students’ argumentative writing performance and self-efficacy for writing (Ferretti & Lewis, 2013 ; Graham et al., 2016 ; Granado-Peinado et al., 2019b , 2022 ; Volet et al., 2009 ). However, only a few studies combining both instructional approaches are available. To date, we only located studies by Granado-Peinado and colleagues ( 2019b , 2022 ) (higher education), Elving and van den Bergh ( 2015 ) (secondary education), and De Smedt and colleagues ( 2018 ; 2020 ) (primary education), that examined the effectiveness of combining explicit writing instruction with collaborative writing. The study by Granado-Peinado and colleagues ( 2022 ) acknowledged the importance of combining both instructional approaches by (a) teaching students how to collaborate and (b) providing them explicit writing instruction to support their argumentative writing. The study of Elving and van den Bergh ( 2015 ) found that peer interaction in pre-writing (i.e., planning) and post-writing (i.e., revising) was more effective than individual writing throughout the entire writing process. This study indicated that even a short five-minute discussion with peers before and after writing, resulted in higher-quality texts (Elving & van den Bergh, 2015 ). De Smedt and colleagues ( 2018 ; 2020 ) found that integrating collaborative writing in explicit writing instruction programs in primary education was a promising approach, as students who wrote collaboratively outperformed students that wrote individually in terms of the quality of their written texts (De Smedt et al., 2018 ; 2020 ).

The present study and research questions

Based on our review of the literature above, it is clear that we still know little about the effectiveness for secondary students of combining explicit instruction and collaborative writing. Most available studies investigated only one of these instructional approaches (often explicit writing instruction), but did not examine the combined effectiveness of the two approaches. The aim of this study was to (a) examine if combining these two approaches (i.e., explicit writing instruction and collaborative writing) was effective with secondary students and to (b) compare collaboration during all phases of the writing process with collaboration during some phases of the process (i.e., alternating between individual and collaborative writing). We followed the suggestion of Scheuer and colleagues ( 2014 ) to divide the writing process into four different phases, and to predetermine which phases were collaborative or individual work. We examined the impact of these approaches to writing argumentative essays on students’ writing performance and self-efficacy for writing.

In this study, a cluster randomized control trial with two measurement occasions (i.e., pre- and post-test) was applied. The first research condition (EI + CW) involved explicit writing instruction in writing, and involved students writing collaboratively during all phases of the writing process. The second research condition (EI + CW/IW) involved explicit writing instruction as well, however, students were not collaborating throughout all phases of the writing process, but were alternating between collaborative and individual writing. The third research condition (MP + CW) was a matched practice condition, in which students received no explicit writing instruction, but were (like the EI + CW research condition) writing collaboratively throughout the whole writing process. For a detailed overview of the components of the three research conditions, see section “Instruments and Materials” and “Appendix B”.

The following research questions were addressed:

RQ1: What is the effect of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on students’ (a) individual argumentative writing performance and (b) self-efficacy for argumentative writing? Based on prior empirical research, we hypothesized better argumentative writing performance and a higher self-efficacy for writing when explicit instruction and opportunities for collaborative writing are provided (Bruning & Kauffman, 2016 ; Ferretti & Lewis, 2013 ; Graham et al., 2016 ; Granado-Peinado et al., 2019b ).

RQ2: Are there differential effects of the explicit writing instruction when it is combined with (a) collaborative writing during all writing phases or with (b) an alternation between individual and collaborative writing? Only a few studies have studied alternating between individual and collaborative learning and writing (Rummel & Spada, 2005 ). Research of Wang and colleagues ( 2011 ) resulted in higher learning outcomes for students who combined collaborative and individual work, whereas research of Hermann and colleagues ( 2001 ) indicated the importance of individual accountability for successful collaborative learning. However, that study also indicated that students who wrote collaboratively tended to make less errors and asked for less help than students who worked individually. Due to these inconsistent findings, we refrain from formulating a hypothesis in any direction on the outcomes for this research question.

Methodology

Participants.

In October 2020, an open call for participation was spread to secondary schools in Flanders (Belgium) who offer an academic track. The academic track provides general education to secondary school students, with the aim to continue studies in tertiary education. In total, ten teachers from five different schools (schools were randomly divided across three conditions) were selected to participate in this study. Teachers from the same school were always grouped in the same condition to avoid spill-over effects. Each teacher participated with one, two, or three classes, resulting in nineteen participating classes (see Table  1 ).

Overview of Participating Schools, Teachers, and Students per Condition

Note. EI + CW = explicit writing instruction + collaborative writing during all phases; EI + CW/IW = explicit writing instruction + alternating between collaborative and individual writing; MP + CW = matched practice (no explicit instruction) + collaborative writing during all phases

As to the participating students, the 19 classes including 400 eleventh and twelfth graders. The majority of the students, 83%, had Dutch (the language of instruction in Flanders, Belgium) as their only home language ( n  = 332), 7.5% of the students ( n  = 30) spoke a second language at home besides Dutch, and 7.1% of the students ( n  = 28) had another home language. Ten students were missing information on home language. 38% ( n  = 152) of the participants were male; 62% ( n  = 248) were female. Chi-square analyses indicated no significant differences in the distribution of home language ( χ 2  = 12.87, df  = 10, p  = .231) between the three conditions. However, a significant difference in the distribution of gender was found ( χ ²=10.69, df  = 2, p  = .005) as the MP + CW condition proportionally included more boys. However, boys and girls did not differ concerning writing performance ( F  = 0.129, df  = 1, p  = .720), nor self-efficacy for writing (self-efficacy for argumentation: F  = 0.332, df  = 1, p  = .565; self-efficacy for regulation: F  = 0.277, df  = 1, p  = .599) at pretest.

Participating teachers averaged teaching 14.6 years ( SD  = 11.90). One-way analysis of variances did not indicate a significant difference between the three conditions regarding teachers’ teaching experience ( F  = 4.649, df  = 2, p  = .052).

Instruments and materials

Intervention programs: components.

A cluster randomized control trial (CRT) design was applied. Central to this design was the random assignment of units (i.e., schools in the present study) to treatment conditions. Table  1 showed the assignment to the research conditions, whereas Table  2 provided an overview of the research conditions, which are described in detail below.

Overview of the Interventions Programs

Explicit writing instruction + collaborative writing during all phases (EI + CW)

The EI + CW research condition was characterized by (a) explicit writing instruction (i.e., explicit instruction on writing knowledge regarding writing argumentative texts and explicit instruction on writing strategies) and (b) collaborative writing during all phases of the writing process (e.g., planning, writing, revising, and rewriting).

Explicit instruction on writing knowledge regarding argumentative texts included (a) information on what an argumentative text is, (b) information on the goal of an argumentative text, (c) information on the structure of an argumentative text, and (d) information on how to formulate strong (counter)arguments and rebuttals. Explicit instruction on writing strategies included instruction on the writing process itself: how to plan, write, revise, and rewrite argumentative texts (Harris et al., 2006 ). In the EI + CW research condition, pairs wrote one joint text. All explicit instruction on writing knowledge regarding argumentative texts and explicit instruction on writing strategies was summarised in an argumentation guide and a knowledge videoclip. Teachers stimulated students to gradually diminish the use of the argumentation guide in view of internalizing the writing knowledge and strategies. During the eight lessons on argumentative writing, students in the EI + CW research condition were writing collaboratively throughout all phases of the writing process. Students were instructed not to divide the work and to strive to write qualitative argumentative texts, that meet the predetermined requirements. More information on the key elements of the intervention study, can be found in Appendix B.

Explicit writing instruction + alternating between collaborative and individual writing (EI + CW/IW)

The EI + CW/IW condition received identical explicit writing instruction as the EI + CW condition. The main difference between the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW research condition lays in the collaboration. In the EI + CW condition, students are going through all phases of the writing process collaboratively, whereas in the EI + CW/IW condition, students are alternating between collaborative and individual work. Since research on planning and revising collaboratively is mostly positive and since Rummel and Spada ( 2005 ) pointed out that there should be alternation between individual and collaborative work during writing, it was chosen in this present study to let students plan and revise together with a peer, and to let students write and rewrite individually. This implied that each individual student wrote an individual text, whereas in the EI + CW research condition, one joint text per pair was written.

Matched practice research condition + collaborative writing throughout all phases (MP + CW)

In the MP + CW condition, students did not receive any explicit instruction, but did receive ample writing opportunities with the same argumentative writing topics and source texts used in the other research conditions. Whenever students in the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW research condition received explicit instruction on argumentative writing, students in the MP + CW research condition received replacement exercises on argumentative writing (e.g., write a persuasive letter to Netflix), but without any explicit writing instruction. Students were asked to write collaboratively throughout the whole writing process (similar to the EI + CW condition), resulting in one joint text per pair. This condition was included in the present study to explore whether students would benefit from collaborative writing argumentative texts during all phases of the writing process, without explicit writing instruction of argumentative writing knowledge and without explicit instruction on writing strategies.

Pairing students

Regardless of the research condition, students were paired based on their writing performance. Teachers were asked to pair students and were given the following instructions: “divide the class into four groups, based on an estimation of the writing performance of the students (level 1: weakest writers, level 2: low to average writers, level 3: average to strong writers, and level 4: very strong writers). Pair students from level 1 with level 2 students, level 2 with level 3 students and level 3 students with level 4 students (to the extent possible of course, as not all levels included the same number of students).“ Prior research revealed that less-experienced writers often learn more when they are writing together with a slightly more experienced peer (Shafie et al., 2010 ). If a dyad consisted of students with clashing personalities, the teacher adjusted the pairing procedure. In case of an uneven number of students, one group of three students was formed.

Argumentative writing lessons

Teachers in all research conditions received a teacher manual and writing material from the researchers, including eight lessons of approximately 50 min. Also a list of potential writing topics was provided (e.g., the use of smartphones at school; vaping is less damaging than smoking; raising the age limit of alcohol consumption to 18 years [instead of 16 years in Belgium]; banning animal testing for cosmetics). Students were free to choose topics, according to their own interest. For each topic, two informative source texts were provided, that included both pro as contra arguments on each topic. The source texts that were used, were identical for all research conditions. Since all texts were authentic, their length was somewhat different, however, they had similar difficulty levels.

During the eight consecutive lessons, many writing opportunities were provided for students to internalize the genre knowledge and the writing strategies. Two types of lessons were developed: (a) explicit instruction lessons and (b) practice lessons with collaborative writing. Table  3 provides an overview of the eight lessons, per research condition.

Overview of Argumentative Writing Lessons

Argumentative writing test

During pre- and post-test, students completed an argumentative writing test based on two informative source texts (Landrieu et al., 2022 ). The topic for the pre-test was “voting rights from the age of 16” and during the post-test students wrote about “the conservation of zoos”. Students were instructed to clearly take a position and to defend that position to persuade readers. They received 45 min to complete their text. In total, 756 texts were collected and evaluated (pre-test: n  = 390; post-test: n  = 366). Respectively 10 and 34 students were absent during the pre- and post-test administration. The texts written by the students were scored by means of a benchmark rating procedure. In benchmark rating, raters are provided with benchmark texts that each represent a certain text quality, ranging from low to high quality (Bouwer et al., in review). The selection of five benchmark texts (with a standardized z-score of -2, -1, 0, 1 and 2) was based on previous research of Landrieu and colleagues ( 2022 ), that based the benchmarks on a scale with a reliable rank order (Separation Scale Reliability = 0.83). The score of the benchmark text with average text quality was 100 and the interval between benchmarks was 15 (for more information, see De Smedt and colleagues, 2020 and Landrieu and colleagues, 2022 ). After two assessment trainings of approximately four hours in total, four trained raters evaluated all texts, by comparing the texts to the five benchmark texts. In view of calculating interrater reliability, 65 texts (9.2%) were double scored by the raters. The texts were randomly selected across conditions ( n  = 14 from the EI + CW condition, n  = 33 from the EI + CW/IW condition, n  = 18 from the MP + CW condition) and across both measurement occasions ( n  = 33 pre-test texts; n  = 32 post-test texts). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of the ratings was examined based on the two-way mixed model, measuring consistency between raters. The ICC was 0.720, indicating a moderate to good reliability.

Reading comprehension test

Prior research indicated that reading and writing skills are strongly related (Shanahan, 2019 ).

In the present study, the relationship between reading and writing was especially important since informative source texts were used. To take into account secondary school students’ reading comprehension skills, a method-independent and valid reading comprehension test, Diatekst, was administered to control for students’ reading performance (Diatoetsen, z.d.).

Self-efficacy for writing

The Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS) (Bruning et al., 2013 ) was adjusted to the genre of argumentative writing. The original SEWS distinguishes self-efficacy for ideation (e.g., “I can think of many ideas for my writing”), self-efficacy for conventions (e.g., “I can write complete sentences”), and self-efficacy for regulation (e.g., “I can avoid distractions while I write) with 16 items on a 100-point scale (Bruning et al., 2013 ). In view of adjusting the instrument to the context of argumentative writing, self-efficacy for ideation was adapted to self-efficacy for argumentation , as was previously done by De Smedt and colleagues ( 2022 ). See Appendix for the adaptations that were made to this subscale. The subscale self-efficacy for convention was not included in the present study, since the focus of this subscale (e.g., on punctuation) does not align with the focus of the intervention.

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) indicated that the fit of the subscales self-efficacy for argumentation and self-efficacy for regulation was good in the present sample ( χ ²(42) = 148.904, p  < .001, CFI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.105, SRMR = 0.054). CFI points to a good fit with values above 0.90 or 0.95 (Jackson et al., 2009 ; Little, 2013 ). Values closer to 0 represent a good fit for RMSEA, ideally les then 0.07, however 0.105 is still an acceptable value (Steiger, 2007 ). Values lower than 0.08 are aspired for SRMR (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). The reliabilities of the subscales were good (Cronbach’s α  = 0.904 for argumentation and α  = 0.856 for regulation).

Figure  1 .

overview of the data collection

Throughout the data collection, a stepwise procedure was applied. After the professionalisation in December 2020, pre-tests (February 2021) and post-tests (May 2021) were administered by the lead author and two trained research assistants. The intervention took place between pre- and post-test. An active informed consent was obtained from all students. All parents received a passive informed consent form as they were offered the opportunity to withdraw their child from participation.

Training of teachers

Content of the training.

Regardless of the research condition, all teachers received a training of approximately two to three hours. During the training, the goals and the aim of the study, as well as more practical information was provided. Teachers in the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW condition received explicit instruction on how to teach writing knowledge regarding argumentative writing and how to teach explicit instruction on writing strategies (see Appendix B for more information). Teachers from the MP + CW research condition, did not receive any information on how to implement explicit writing instruction in their writing classes. Additionally, teachers were informed on how their students should be collaborating (collaboratively throughout all phases of the writing process for the EI + CW and MP + CW research conditions, and alternating between collaborative and individual writing for the EI + CW/IW research condition; see Appendix B for more information).

Materials used during teacher training

Teachers were taught how to use the condition-specific teacher manuals and materials (e.g., PowerPoint-presentations, the argumentation guide, the knowledge videoclip and the Google Documents of the students).

Fidelity of implementation

The lead author and two trained research assistants observed two lessons of each participating teacher ( n  = 10), resulting in 20 observations. An observation checklist based on De Smedt and colleagues ( 2020 ) and Vaughn and colleagues ( 2011 ) was used. The observation checklist focused on (a) time spent on on/off-task teacher activities, (b) the quality of teachers’ implementation of the intervention on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from score 1 = very low to score 5 = very high quality, and (c) a global evaluation of the observed lesson (i.e., instructional qualities of the teacher, classroom management, and student involvement) using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from score 1 = very low to score 5 = very high evaluation.

Observations indicated that teachers spent, on average, 44.8 min ( SD  = 3.95) on the lessons which approximates the recommended time of 45–50 min per lesson. Time spent does not differ significantly between conditions ( F  = 2.39, df  = 2, p  = .162). Teachers were on task on average 79.60% of the observed lesson time. However, there was a significant difference between conditions ( F  = 6.50, df  = 2, p  = .025). EI + CW/IW teachers spent less time on task than teachers in both other conditions. This was mainly due to one teacher’s off-task behaviour. Students’ post-test writing results of that specific teacher were, however, not significantly different from the other students within the same research condition (p < .001) (test results from off-task teacher: M  = 101.29; SD  = 16.51; post-test results from other teachers in EI + CW/IW condition: M  = 99.13; SD  = 16.02).

Regarding the quality of teachers’ implementation of the intervention, we can conclude that teachers integrated the key elements of this intervention study quite well and similar to each other as we, the researchers, had intended (measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from score 1 = not implemented to score 5 = very well implemented) (EI + CW: M  = 3.73, SD  = 1.59; EI + CW/IW: M  = 3.74, SD  = 1.97; MP + CW: M  = 3.92, SD  = 1.15).

Regarding global quality of the observed lessons, fidelity results show that (a) the instruction of the observed lessons was strong (EI + CW: M  = 4.33, SD  = 0.58; EI + CW/IW: M  = 3.75, SD  = 0.65; MP + CW: M  = 4.67; SD  = 0.58), (b) class management was good (EI + CW: M  = 4.67, SD  = 0.58; EI + CW/IW: M  = 3.50, SD  = 0.71; MP + CW: M  = 4.33, SD  = 0.29), and (c) students engaged well during the lessons (EI + CW: M  = 4.50, SD  = 0.50; EI + CW/IW: M  = 4.63, SD  = 0.25; MP + CW: M  = 4.00, SD  = 0.00). No significant differences between conditions were found (quality of instruction ( F  = 2.06, df  = 2, p  = .20); class management ( F  = 3.85, df  = 2, p  = .08) and student engagement ( F  = 3.63, df  = 2, p  = .08)).

Data analysis

To investigate the effect of the intervention on students’ writing performance and self-efficacy for writing, multilevel analyses were performed in MLwiN 2.29. A three-level null model was initially computed for each post-test response variable to take into account the nesting of students (i.e., level 1) grouped in dyads (i.e., level 2) within classes (i.e., level 3). Since the variance between dyads was not significantly different from zero ( χ ²=0.823, df  = 1, p  = .364), we decided to proceed with multilevel analyses on two levels (level 1: students; level 2: classes).

Two-level null models were subsequently constructed for each post-test response variable (i.e., writing performance, self-efficacy for argumentation, and self-efficacy for regulation). The intercepts in the fixed part of the null models represent the overall mean of each response variable for all students in all classes. In the random part of the null models, the variances at class level are significantly different from zero which indicates the importance of including two levels in the analyses and therefore justifying the use of multilevel analyses. After constructing the null models, Model 1 was constructed by adding multiple predictors to the null model (i.e., gender, reading comprehension, and pre-test scores). We opted for retaining predictors in the model as long as the model fit improved (regardless of the predictor was significant or not). For Model 2, the research conditions were added to the model. Finally, to obtain a better understanding of the relative impact of the significant parameters, standardized regression coefficients were calculated.

Descriptive statistics

Table  4 displays the descriptive statistics at pre- and post-test for all variables. Table  5 displays the correlations between these variables. There is a moderate (but significant at p  < .01 level) correlation between students’ argumentative writing performance during pre-test and post-test. Higher correlations were found between students’ self-efficacy during pre-test and post-test (ranging from r  = .564 to r  = .704).

Descriptives for all Study Variables according each Research Condition

Correlations for all Study Variables

Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05

Multilevel results

Tables  6 , ​ ,7 7 and ​ and8 8 present the summaries of the model estimates in the multilevel analysis of students’ post-test of (a) argumentative writing performance (Table  6 ), (b) self-efficacy for argumentation (Table  7 ), and (c) self-efficacy for regulation (Table  8 ).

Summary of the Model Estimates for the Two-level Analysis of Students’ Argumentative Writing Performance at Post-test

Note . A Model equation with MP + CW condition as reference condition as an example; B Centred around mean

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05

Summary of the Model Estimates for the Two-level Analysis of Students’ Self-efficacy for Argumentation at Post-test

Summary of the Model Estimates for the Two-level Analysis of Students’ Self-efficacy for Regulation at Post-test

Note . a Model equation with MP + CW condition as reference condition as an example; B Centred around mean

Argumentative writing performance

Model 2 has a better fit than model 1 ( χ² =26.000, df  = 2, p  < .001), which has a better fit than the null model ( χ² =219.50, df  = 3, p  < .001). After controlling for students’ gender, pre-test writing, and reading comprehension performance, the results in Table  6 show that the students in the EI + CW condition ( χ² =39.503, df  = 1, p  < .001, effect size = 0.956) and EI + CW/IW condition ( χ² =40.017, df  = 1, p  < .001, effect size = 0.881) outperform MP + CW students at the post-test for argumentative writing. No significant differences between the EI + CW and the EI + CW/IW condition were found ( χ² =0.338, df  = 1, p  = .561).

Self-efficacy for argumentation

Model 2 has a better fit than model 1 ( χ² =10.349, df  = 2, p  = .006), which has a better fit than the null model ( χ² =326.11, df  = 3, p  < .001). After controlling for students’ pre-test self-efficacy for argumentation, writing performance, and reading comprehension, the results in Table  7 indicate that students from the EI + CW ( χ² =11.220, df  = 1, p  < .001, effect size = 1.499) and EI + CW/IW condition ( χ² =10.102, df  = 1, p  = .001, effect size = 1.356) report a higher self-efficacy for argumentation at post-test compared to MP + CW students. No significant differences between the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW condition ( χ² =0.249, df  = 1, p  = .612) were found.

Self-efficacy for regulation

Model 2 has a better fit than model 1 ( χ² =7.574, df  = 2, p  = .022), which has a better fit than the null model ( χ² =413.79, df  = 3, p  < .001). After controlling for students’ pre-test self-efficacy for regulation, writing performance, and reading comprehension, Table  8 indicates that there is a significant difference between the EI + CW and MP + CW condition ( χ² =7.813, df  = 1, p  = .005, effect size = 1.018) and between the EI + CW/IW and MP + CW condition ( χ² =5.262, df  = 1, p  = .022, effect size = 0.919). No statistically significant differences were found between the EI + CW and the EI + CW/IW condition ( χ² =0.607, df  = 1, p  = .435).

This paper investigated the importance of explicit writing instruction and collaborative writing on (a) argumentative writing performance and (b) self-efficacy for writing of secondary school students. This study additionally aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of alternating between individual and collaborative writing throughout the writing process.

Impact of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on writing performance

First, the results indicated that there is a large (effect size ≥ 0.8, Cohen, 1977) significant effect of explicit writing instruction and collaborative writing for both the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW research condition on students’ argumentative writing performance, which confirmed the first hypothesis of the present study. This was in line with prior studies by Ferretti and Lewis ( 2013 ), Graham and colleagues ( 2016 ), Granado-Peinado and colleagues ( 2019a ), and Van Drie and colleagues ( 2018 ) who championed the importance of explicit writing instruction to achieve higher argumentative writing outcomes. In the present study, explicit writing instruction in both the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW conditions was conceptualized as a combination of (a) explicit instruction on writing knowledge regarding writing argumentative texts and (b) explicit instruction on writing strategies. Students learned how to compose and structure an argumentative text (e.g., how to include counterarguments and rebuttals), but also received instruction on the different phases of the writing process (i.e., planning, writing, revising, and rewriting), which led to higher writing performance. In contrast, students in the matched practice research condition (MP + CW) achieved lower scores than students from both the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW research conditions. This study indicated that students not only need ample collaborative writing opportunities, they additionally benefit from explicit writing instruction in which they are taught how to write argumentative texts.

Impact of explicit instruction and collaborative writing on self-efficacy for writing

As to students’ self-efficacy beliefs, the results of this study indicated that providing explicit writing instruction and enabling students to write collaboratively, positively affected self-efficacy for argumentation and self-regulation. The positive effect on students’ self-efficacy for argumentation is likely due to the provided explicit instruction on writing knowledge regarding writing argumentative texts. Students were explicitly taught how to construct an argumentative text and what elements should be included (e.g., arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals), which may have led to improved self-efficacy for argumentation. The positive effect on self-efficacy for regulation can be connected to the fact that students gained confidence to successfully direct themselves through the writing process (Bruning et al., 2013 ). Students were supported in how to plan, write, revise, and rewrite an argumentative text and, therefore, this intervention likely helped students to form a more positive belief in their competence in starting and continuing to keep writing even though it is difficult. Additionally, by providing a pre-writing (i.e. planning) and post-writing (i.e. rewriting) phase in the writing process, students likely reflected on their writing goals and progress (see Bruning et al., 2013 ). This is in line with the WWC model (Graham, 2018b ), claiming that if students believe they are good writers, their writing performance can be enhanced. In this respect, it would also be relevant for further research to test these assumptions (e.g., by interviewing the students on how the intervention affected their self-efficacy for writing).

Differential effects of alternating between collaborative and individual writing

Throughout the years, writing has often been perceived as a solitary task. However, this point of view was challenged by the WWC model (Graham, 2018b ; Storch, 2019 ). Multiple studies have pointed out the usefulness of collaborative writing in the classroom (Bouwer et al., 2022 ; Graham & Perin, 2007 ; Harlena et al., 2019 ). Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether students benefit most from collaborating throughout the complete writing process or from alternating between collaborative and individual writing phases. On the one hand, research of Graham and Perin ( 2007 ) and Harlena and colleagues ( 2019 ) indicated that writing collaboratively throughout all phases of the writing process was very effective and increased writing performance. On the other hand, research of McDonough and De Vleeschauwer ( 2019 ), Rahayu and colleagues ( 2020 ), Sridharan and colleagues ( 2018 ), Rummel and Spada ( 2005 ), and Storch ( 2005 ) pointed out the importance of alternating between collaborative and individual writing. Rummel and Spada ( 2005 ) suggested that alternating between collaborative and individual writing could lead to successful collaboration. It remains, however, unclear how this should be effectively implemented during collaborative writing.

Prior educational research noted that it is crucial to establish a well-balanced proportion between individual and collaborative work (Hermann et al., 2001 ; Olsen et al., 2019 ; Scheuer et al., 2014 ; Wang et al., 2011 ). As Olsen and colleagues ( 2019 ) indicated: “ it is not just a combination [between collaborative and individual learning] that is important, but to understand what combinations of collaborative and individual learning can be effective for learning and when ” (Olsen et al., 2019 , p. 377). Based on educational research of McDonough and De Vleeschauwer ( 2019 ), Rahayu and colleagues ( 2020 ), Sridharan and colleagues ( 2018 ), and Storch ( 2005 ), alternating between collaborative and individual writing could lead to higher writing performance and self-efficacy for writing. However, the results from the current study did not corroborate these prior studies. Multiple factors might explain this.

First, switching between collaborative and individual writing in the EI + CW/IW research condition might have taken additional time that could be better spent in explicit writing instruction in the EI + CW research condition. Research by Olsen and colleagues ( 2019 ) pointed out that the transition between collaborative and individual learning took time that otherwise could have been spent on instruction and therefore could have led to lower learning outcomes (Olsen et al., 2019 ). Closely monitoring how much time is spent on instruction (through video analyses on what happens in the classroom) in both research conditions would have had an added value in this study. For further research, it would also be beneficial to verify how alternating between collaborative and individual writing can be optimised and further investigated. The present study made an attempt in this respect, by choosing for individual planning, collaborative writing, individual revising and collaborative rewriting. However, other operationalisations such as planning collaboratively and writing, revising and rewriting individually need to be further explored.

Second, there might be too many similarities between the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW research conditions as implemented in the present study. The main difference between both conditions was the way collaboration was formed (collaborative writing throughout all writing phases in the EI + CW research condition, and alternating between individual and collaborative writing in the EI + CW/IW research condition). The provided explicit writing instruction was identical in the EI + CW and EI + CW/IW research condition. Since providing explicit writing instruction already had a large impact on the argumentative writing performance of the students, maybe alternating between collaborative and individual writing did not make an additional difference.

Another similarity between the two research conditions can be found in the pre-writing phase, where students were asked to plan their text collaboratively. The teachers asked the students to take one shared point of view (e.g., pro or contra voting rights from the age of 16) and to think about arguments to defend that position and to persuade a reader. This could be a limitation of this study. We asked students to take in one shared point of view, without checking students’ point of views in advance. This might have had an impact on the writing performance of students, since they felt obligated to follow the opinion of their peer. However, no differences in writing performance and self-efficacy for writing were found between both research conditions. Writing performance and self-efficacy for argumentative writing may be improved if all students (including writing within pairs) can take their own point of view, instead of a shared point of view. Future research could also ask students’ point of view before they start planning their argumentative text. Maybe students with different opinions experience more difficulties in reaching agreement during the planning phase, which could influence the quality of their written texts? In their study, Scheuer and colleagues ( 2014 ) intentionally paired up students with conflicting opinions. Conflicting opinions demand collaborative conflict resolution wherein students need to consider different point of views, which could lead to higher learning outcomes, also confirmed by Nussbaum ( 2008 ).

Third, students in the EI + CW condition went through all phases of the writing process collaboratively, resulting in one argumentative text per pair. Students in the EI + CW/IW condition planned and revised their texts collaboratively, but wrote texts individually, resulting in two argumentative texts per pair. Given that no differences between both conditions were found, this may suggest that both approaches are equally effective. Future research should investigate more in depth the effectiveness of collaborative writing in which pairs plan and write the same text or in which pairs plan collaboratively but each produce their own text. It would also be interesting and useful to investigate how a writing task should ideally be constructed in order to enhance effective collaboration between students. As Thomas ( 2014 ) noted, a well developed task that ensures students are required to use their individual knowledge and therefore also their individual accountability is crucial for good collaboration. This could be stimulated by providing each student with a different informative source text that they have to process individually.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Through this study, we tried to gain more insight into the effectiveness of collaborative writing throughout the whole writing process, as well as when students alternate between collaborative and individual writing (planning collaboratively, writing individually, revising collaboratively, and rewriting individually). More in-depth research into the quality of collaboration is needed to gain insight into the interaction processes and writing processes that take place during collaborative writing. In this respect, future studies might map how dialogue between students is formed throughout all phases of the writing process (e.g., by using screencast software, video and audio recordings, etc.). Since only a limited number of studies are available on how to alternate between collaborative and individual writing, further research on how to gain insight into what works best with the intention to inspire future classroom practice, is called for.

In addition to the above discussed limitations of the study design, it must be acknowledged that in view of calculating interrater reliability only 9.2% (n = 65) of the written texts were double scored. This can be considered as a relatively low percentage and therefore as a limitation of the study. Nevertheless, it has to be taken into account that double scoring 65 texts is still a substantial large amount of texts given the large data collection.

Finally, we can conclude that research on collaboration remains inconsistent and further studies on collaborative writing or alternating between collaborative and individual writing is therefore called for. However, our study did indicate that explicit writing instruction during collaborative, argumentative writing achieved a large impact on secondary school students’ writing performance and self-efficacy for argumentative writing. This should be central in each writing intervention, since students do not automatically seem to master these writing skills (Thomas, 2013 ).

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) (Grant No. G010719N).

Adaptations made to Self-Efficacy for Writing (adapted from Bruning et al., 2013 ).

Key ingredients of the intervention study .

Declarations

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to the construction of self-efficacy scales.Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents,307–337.
• Bouwer R, Koster M, van den Bergh H. Effects of a strategy-focused instructional program on the writing quality of upper elementary students in the Netherlands. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 110 (1):58–71. doi: 10.1037/edu0000206. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouwer, R., Ockenburg, L., Van, Loo, J., Van Der, & Van Weijen, D. (2022). effectief schrijfonderwijs in het voortgezet onderwijs [effective writing education in secondary education] . 1–51.
• Bruning R, Dempsey M, Kauffman DF, McKim C, Zumbrunn S. Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105 (1):25–38. doi: 10.1037/a0029692. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruning, R. H., & Kauffman, D. F. (2016). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 160–173). Guilford.
• Cuevas I, Mateos M, Martín E, Luna M, Martín A. Collaborative writing of an argumentative synthesis from multiple sources: The role of writing beliefs and strategies to deal with controversy. Journal of Writing Research. 2016; 8 (2):205–226. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2016.08.02.02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Bernardi, B., & Antolini, E. (2007). Fostering Students’ Willingness and Interest in Argumentative Writing: An Intervention Study. In S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and Motivation (pp. 183–202). Elsevier. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269107473_What_is_governance/link/548173090cf22525dcb61443/download%0Ahttp://www.econ.upf.edu/~reynal/Civilwars_12December2010.pdf%0A wars_12December2010.pdf%0Ahttps://think-asia.org/handle/11540/8282%0Ahttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41857625
• De Smedt, F., Emmelien, M., Barendse, M., Rosseel, Y., Van Keer, H., & De Naeghel, J. (2019). Cognitive and motivational challenges in writing: The impact of explicit instruction and peer-assisted writing in upper- elementary grades (pp. 1–455). Ghent University.
• De Smedt, F., Graham, S., & Van Keer, H. (2020). “It takes two”: The added value of structured peer-assisted writing in explicit writing instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 60 (December 2019), 101835. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101835
• De Smedt F, Landrieu Y, De Wever B, Van Keer H. Do cognitive processes and motives for argumentative writing converge in writer profiles? Journal of Educational Research. 2022 doi: 10.1080/00220671.2022.2122020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Smedt F, Van Keer H. Fostering writing in upper primary grades: A study into the distinct and combined impact of explicit instruction and peer assistance. Reading and Writing. 2018; 31 (2):325–354. doi: 10.1007/s11145-017-9787-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL ? Over-scripting CSCL . Open University of the Netherlands. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/fss/2008-0108-212846/kirschner_02_threeworldcscl.pdf .
• Driscoll DL, Paszek J, Gorzelsky G, Hayes CL, Jones E. Genre knowledge and writing development: Results from the writing transfer project. Written Communication. 2020; 37 (1):69–103. doi: 10.1177/0741088319882313. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elving K, van den Bergh H. Gewicht in de schaal. Op zoek naar manieren om havisten betere teksten te laten schrijven. Levende Talen Tijdschrift. 2015; 16 (2):26–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferretti, R. P., & Fan, Y. (2016). Argumentative writing. In C. A. MacArthur, Steve Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd editio, pp. 301–315). Guilford.
• Ferretti, R. P., & Lewis, W. E. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 113–140). Guilford. https://books.google.be/books/about/Best_Practices_in_Writing_Instruction_Se.html?id=SHa-8GJe4DMC &redir_esc=y%0D
• Ferretti RP, MacArthur CA, Dowdy NS. The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2000; 92 (4):694–702. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flower L, Hayes JR. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication. 1981; 32 (4):365–387. doi: 10.2307/356600. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham, S. (2018a). A Revised Writer(s)-Within-Community Model of Writing. In The lifespan development of writing (pp. 272–325). Routledge. 10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406
• Graham, S. (2018b). A Writer(s)-within-Community Model of Writing. In The lifespan development of writing (Vol. 53, p. 258).
• Graham S, Daley SG, Aitken AA, Harris KR, Robinson KH. Do writing motivational beliefs predict middle school students’ writing performance? Journal of Research in Reading. 2018; 41 (4):642–656. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12245. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S, Gillespie A, McKeown D. Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing. 2013; 26 (1):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9395-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham S, Harris KR. The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist. 2000; 35 (1):3–12. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chambers, A. B. (2016). Evidence-based practice and writing instruction: A review of reviews. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 177–202). Guilford. https://books.google.be/books?hl=nl &lr=&id=HxqGCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT453&dq=evidence+based+practice+and+writing+instruction&ots=DMU_21OFpm&sig=w5ImzTUbq7JG3lH6L2djHWKznqk#v=onepage&q=evidence based practice and writing instruction&f = false
• Graham S, Perin D. A Meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99 (3):445–476. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granado-Peinado M, Cuevas I, Olmos R, Martín E, Casado-Ledesma L, Mateos M. Collaborative writing of argumentative syntheses by low-performing undergraduate writers: Explicit instruction and practice. Reading and Writing. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s11145-022-10318-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granado-Peinado M, Mateos M, Martín E, Cuevas I. Teaching to write collaborative argumentative syntheses in higher education. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32 (8):2037–2058. doi: 10.1007/s11145-019-09939-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harlena D, Hamzah Collaborative writing strategy for teaching writing descriptive text. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research. 2019; 8 (10):3316–3318. doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.200306.045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris KR, Graham S, Mason LH. Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling Young Writers: Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal. 2006; 43 (2):295–340. doi: 10.3102/00028312043002295. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hausmann, R. G. M., Van de Sande, B., & VanLehn, K. (2008). Are self-explaining and coached problem solving more effective when done by pairs of students than alone? Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2369–2374.
• Hermann, F., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2001). Solving the Case Together: The Challenge of Net-based Interdisciplinary Collaboration. First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning .
• Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6 (1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting Practices in Confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods. 2009; 14 (1):6–23. doi: 10.1037/a0014694. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landrieu, Y., De Smedt, F., Van Keer, H., & De Wever, B. (2022). Assessing the Quality of Argumentative Texts: Examining the General Agreement Between Different Rating Procedures and Exploring Inferences of (Dis)agreement Cases. Frontiers in Education , 7 . 10.3389/feduc.2022.784261
• Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling . Guilford.
• McDonough K, De Vleeschauwer J. Comparing the effect of collaborative and individual prewriting on EFL learners’ writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2019; 44 (January):123–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.04.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morphy P, Graham S. Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing. 2012; 25 (3):641–678. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NCES national center for education statistics (2012). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 . https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf
• Nussbaum EM, Schraw G. Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. Journal of Experimental Education. 2007; 76 (1):59–92. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nussbaum M. Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2008; 33 (3):345–359. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olsen JK, Rummel N, Aleven V. It is not either or: An initial investigation into combining collaborative and individual learning using an ITS. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2019; 14 (3):353–381. doi: 10.1007/s11412-019-09307-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paquette KR. Integrating the 6 + 1 writing traits model with cross-age tutoring: An investigation of elementary students’ writing development. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2009; 48 (1):28–38. doi: 10.1080/19388070802226261. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahayu KD, Novitasari DA, Mirantika R. Students’ collaborative writing method in pre-writing phase. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning Linguistics and Literature. 2020; 8 (2):471–482. doi: 10.24256/ideas.v8i2.1615. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rummel N, Spada H. Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2005; 14 (2):201–241. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheuer O, McLaren BM, Weinberger A, Niebuhr S. Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science. 2014; 42 (2):127–157. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schunk DH. Self-Efficacy for Reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2003; 19 :159–172. doi: 10.1080/10573560308219. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ. Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly. 2007; 23 (1):7–25. doi: 10.1080/10573560600837578. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shafie, L. A., Maesin, A., Osman, N., Nayan, S., & Mansor, M. (2010). Understanding Collaborative Academic Writing among Beginner University Writers in Malaysia. Studies in Literature and Language , 1 (2), 58–69. http://leeds.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw3V 3Pj5QwFG7MbmK8GNcfOP5KT3sxTKC0BQ4enFGzibOazM6o8ULe0qIkK6vDaKJ_va-lUNg9ePdECgRIP_r69fW97xGSsHkUXrEJWgktIpXpDFIpeZUyYYIXZQVcgbbB72crvlnw9Qex9pXl_Ln_AfjtJF1l6XH-pX00_EejZWTSE22toYWpztAYPUIfpmHuM
• Shanahan, T. (2019). Relationships between Reading and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 194–207). Guilford Press.
• Slavin RE. Cooperative learning and student achievement: Six theoretical perspectives. Advances in Motivation and Achievement. 1989; 6 :161–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sridharan B, Muttakin MB, Mihret DG. Students’ perceptions of peer assessment effectiveness: An explorative study. Accounting Education. 2018; 27 (3):259–285. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2018.1476894. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences. 2007; 42 (5):893–898. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch N. Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2005; 14 (3):153–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch N. Collaborative writing. Language Teaching. 2019; 52 (1):40–59. doi: 10.1017/S0261444818000320. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas TA. Developing team skills through a collaborative writing assignment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2013; 39 (4):479–495. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.850587. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas TA. Developing team skills through a collaborative writing assignment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2014; 39 (4):479–495. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.850587. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Drie, J., Janssen, T., & Groenendijk, T. (2018). Effects of writing instruction on adolescents’ knowledge of writing and text quality in history. L1 Educational Studies in Language and Literature , 18 , 1–28. 10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.03.08
• Varghese SA, Abraham SA. Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing. 1998; 7 (3):287–306. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90018-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Klingner JK, Swanson EA, Boardman AG, Roberts G, Mohammed SS, Stillman-Spisak SJ. Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal. 2011; 48 (4):938–964. doi: 10.3102/0002831211410305. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volet S, Summers M, Thurman J. High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained? Learning and Instruction. 2009; 19 (2):128–143. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang HC, Rosé CP, Chang CY. Agent-based dynamic support for learning from collaborative brainstorming in scientific inquiry. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2011; 6 (3):371–395. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9124-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wigglesworth G, Storch N. Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing. 2009; 26 (3):445–466. doi: 10.1177/0265532209104670. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

BibGuru Blog

Be more productive in school

• Citation Styles

How to write an argumentative essay

The argumentative essay is a staple in university courses, and writing this style of essay is a key skill for students across multiple disciplines. Here’s what you need to know to write an effective and compelling argumentative essay.

What is an argumentative essay?

An argumentative essay takes a stance on an issue and presents an argument to defend that stance with the intent of persuading the reader to agree. It generally requires extensive research into a topic so that you have a deep grasp of its subtleties and nuances, are able to take a position on the issue, and can make a detailed and logical case for one side or the other.

It’s not enough to merely have an opinion on an issue—you have to present points to justify your opinion, often using data and other supporting evidence.

When you are assigned an argumentative essay, you will typically be asked to take a position, usually in response to a question, and mount an argument for it. The question can be two-sided or open-ended, as in the examples provided below.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts:

Two-sided Question

Should completing a certain number of volunteer hours be a requirement to graduate from high school? Support your argument with evidence.

Open-ended Question

What is the most significant impact that social media has had on this generation of young people?

Once again, it’s important to remember that you’re not just conveying facts or information in an argumentative essay. In the course of researching your topic, you should develop a stance on the issue. Your essay will then express that stance and attempt to persuade the reader of its legitimacy and correctness through discussion, assessment, and evaluation.

The main types of argumentative essays

Although you are advancing a particular viewpoint, your argumentative essay must flow from a position of objectivity. Your argument should evolve thoughtfully and rationally from evidence and logic rather than emotion.

There are two main models that provide a good starting point for crafting your essay: the Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

The Toulmin Model

This model is commonly used in academic essays. It mounts an argument through the following four steps:

• Make a claim.
• Present the evidence, or grounds, for the claim.
• Explain how the grounds support the claim.
• Address potential objections to the claim, demonstrating that you’ve given thought to the opposing side and identified its limitations and deficiencies.

As an example of how to put the Toulmin model into practice, here’s how you might structure an argument about the impact of devoting public funding to building low-income housing.

• Make your claim that low-income housing effectively solves several social issues that drain a city’s resources, providing a significant return on investment.
• Cite data that shows how an increase in low-income housing is related to a reduction in crime rates, homelessness, etc.
• Explain how this data proves the beneficial impact of funding low-income housing.
• Preemptively counter objections to your claim and use data to demonstrate whether these objections are valid or not.

The Rogerian Model

This model is also frequently used within academia, and it also builds an argument using four steps, although in a slightly different fashion:

• Acknowledge the merits of the opposing position and what might compel people to agree with it.
• Draw attention to the problems with this position.
• Lay out your own position and identify how it resolves those problems.
• Proffer some middle ground between the two viewpoints and make the case that proponents of the opposing position might benefit from adopting at least some elements of your view.

The persuasiveness of this model owes to the fact that it offers a balanced view of the issue and attempts to find a compromise. For this reason, it works especially well for topics that are polarizing and where it’s important to demonstrate that you’re arguing in good faith.

To illustrate, here’s how you could argue that smartphones should be permitted in classrooms.

• Concede that smartphones can be a distraction for students.
• Argue that what teachers view as disruptions are actually opportunities for learning.
• Offer the view that smartphones, and students’ interest in them, can be harnessed as teaching tools.
• Suggest teaching activities that involve smartphones as a potential resource for teachers who are not convinced of their value.

It’s not essential to adhere strictly to one model or the other—you can borrow elements from both models to structure your essay. However, no matter which model of argumentation you choose, your essay will need to have an outline that effectively presents and develops your position.

How to outline and write an argumentative essay

A clear and straightforward structure works best for argumentative essays since you want to make it easy for your reader to understand your position and follow your arguments. The traditional essay outline comprises an introductory paragraph that announces your thesis statement, body paragraphs that unfold your argument point by point, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes your thesis and supporting points.

Introductory paragraph

This paragraph provides an overview of your topic and any background information that your readers will need in order to understand the context and your position. It generally concludes with an explicit statement of your position on the topic, which is known as your thesis statement.

Over the last decade, smartphones have transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, socially, culturally, and personally. They are now incorporated into almost every facet of daily life, and this includes making their way into classrooms. There are many educators who view smartphones with suspicion and see them as a threat to the sanctity of the classroom. Although there are reasons to regard smartphones with caution, there are ways to use them responsibly to teach and educate the next generation of young minds. Indeed, the value they hold as teaching tools is nearly unlimited: as a way to teach digital literacy, to reach students through a medium that is familiar and fun for them, and to provide a nimble and adaptable learning environment.

Body paragraphs

Most argumentative essays have at least three body paragraphs that lay out the supporting points in favor of your argument. Each paragraph should open with a topic sentence that presents a separate point that is then fleshed out and backed up by research, facts, figures, data, and other evidence. Remember that your aim in writing an argumentative essay is to convince or persuade your reader, and your body paragraphs are where you present your most compelling pieces of information in order to do just that.

The body of your essay is also where you should address any opposing arguments and make your case against them, either disproving them or stating the reasons why you disagree. Responding to potential rebuttals strengthens your argument and builds your credibility with your readers.

A frequent objection that teachers have to smartphones in the classroom is that students use them to socialize when they should be learning. This view overlooks the fact that students are using smartphones to connect with each other and this is a valuable skill that should be encouraged, not discouraged, in the classroom. A 2014 study demonstrated the benefits of providing students with individual smartphones. Sanctioned smartphone use in the classroom proved to be of particular importance in improving educational outcomes for low-income and at-risk students. What’s more, learning apps have been developed specifically to take advantage of the potential of smartphones to reach learners of various levels and backgrounds, and many offer the ability to customize the method and delivery of lessons to individual learner preferences. This shows that the untapped potential of smartphones is huge, and many teachers would do well to consider incorporating them into their classrooms.

Your concluding paragraph wraps up your essay by restating your thesis and recapping the arguments you presented in your body paragraphs. No new information should be introduced in your conclusion, however, you may consider shifting the lens of your argument to make a comment on how this issue affects the world at large or you personally, always keeping in mind that objectivity and relevance are your guiding principles.

Smartphones have a growing place in the world of education, and despite the presence of legitimate concerns about their use, their value as teaching tools has been clearly established. With more and more of our lives going digital and with the growing emphasis on offering distance learning as an option, educators with an eye to the future won't wait to embrace smartphones and find ways to use them to their fullest effect. As much time and space as we could devote to weighing the pros and cons of smartphones, the fact is that they are not going to disappear from our lives, and our best bet is to develop their, and our students', potential.

Frequently Asked Questions about argumentative essays

Your argumentative essay starts with an introductory paragraph. This paragraph provides an overview of your topic and any background information that your readers will need in order to understand the context and your position.

Like any traditional essay, the argumentative essay consists of three parts:

• Introduction

There are do's and don'ts in argumentative writing. This article summarizes some of them well - you should, for example, avoid coming to an argument based on feelings, without any evidence. Everything you say needs to be backed up by evidence, unless you are the renowned expert in the field.

Yes, you can start your argumentative essay with a question or with a thesis statement. Or you can do both - ask a question and then immediately answer it with a statement.

There are contrasting views on that. In some situations it can make sense to end your argumentative essay with a question - for example, when you want to create room for further discussions or want the reader to leave thinking about the question.

Make your life easier with our productivity and writing resources.

For students and teachers.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Writing curriculum

Argumentative Writing Unit

Writing prompts, lesson plans, webinars, mentor texts and a culminating contest, all to inspire your students to tell us what matters to them.

By The Learning Network

Unit Overview

On our site, we’ve been offering teenagers ways to tell the world what they think for over 20 years. Our student writing prompt forums encourage them to weigh in on current events and issues daily, while our contests have offered an annual outlet since 2014 for formalizing those opinions into evidence-based essays.

In this unit, we’re bringing together all the resources we’ve developed along the way to help students figure out what they want to say, and how to say it effectively.

Here is what this unit offers, but we would love to hear from both teachers and students if there is more we could include. Let us know in the comments, or by writing to [email protected].

Start With Our Prompts for Argumentative Writing

How young is too young to use social media? Should students get mental health days off from school? Is $1 billion too much money for any one person to have?

These are the kinds of questions we ask every day on our site. In 2017 we published a list of 401 Prompts for Argumentative Writing categorized to provoke thinking on aspects of contemporary life from social media to sports, politics, gender issues and school. In 2021, we followed it up with 300 Questions and Images to Inspire Argument Writing , which catalogs all our argument-focused Student Opinion prompts since then, plus our more accessible Picture Prompts.

Teachers tell us their students love looking at these lists, both to inspire their own writing and to find links to reliable sources about the issues that intrigue them. In fact, every year we get many contest submissions that grow directly out of these questions. Several, like this one , have even gone on to win.

But even if you’re not participating in our contest, you might use these prompts to invite the kind of casual, low-stakes writing that can help your students build skills — in developing their voices, making claims and backing them up with solid reasoning and evidence.

And, if your students respond to our most recent prompts by posting comments on our site, they can also practice making arguments for an authentic audience of fellow students from around the world. Each week we choose our favorites to honor in our Current Events Conversation column .

Find Lesson Plans on Every Aspect of Argument Writing

Over the years, we’ve published quite a few lesson plans to support our annual argument writing contests — so many, in fact, that we finally rounded them all up into one easy list.

In “ 10 Ways to Teach Argument-Writing With The New York Times ,” you’ll find resources for:

Exploring the role of a newspaper opinion section

Understanding the difference between fact and opinion

Analyzing the use of rhetorical strategies like ethos, pathos and logos

Working with claims, evidence and counterarguments

Helping students discover the issues that matter to them

Breaking out of the “echo chamber” when researching hot-button issues

Experimenting with visual argument-making

In 2021, we also developed An Argumentative-Writing Unit for Students Doing Remote Learning that can help teenagers guide their own learning.

Teach and Learn With Mentor Texts

You probably already know that you can find arguments to admire — and “writer’s moves” to emulate — all over the Times Opinion section . But have you thought about using the work of our previous Student Editorial Contest winners as mentor texts too?

Here are ways to use both:

Learn from the Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof’s writing process : One edition of our “Annotated by the Author” Mentor Text series is by Mr. Kristof. See what he has to say about the writing challenges he faced in a recent column and how he did the kinds of things students will have to do, too, from fact-checking to fixing grammar errors to balancing storytelling with making a larger point.

Get to know one writer’s rhetorical style : Many teachers use an “adopt a columnist” method, inviting students to focus on the work of one of the Times Opinion columnists to get to know his or her issues and rhetorical style. In 2019, an English teacher in Connecticut wrote for our site about how he does this exercise, in which his students choose from among columnists at The Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

Use the work of teenage winners to help your students identify “writer’s moves” they can borrow: Teachers have told us there is no better way to prepare students to enter our contest than to have them examine the work of previous winners.

On our current site, you can find the essays of the top winners and the runners-up from 2017-202 3. Invite your students to read one and answer the questions we pose in all our Mentor Texts columns : “What do you notice or admire about this piece? What lessons might it have for your writing?” Then, have them borrow one or more of this student’s “writer’s moves” and imitate it in their own work.

We have also published two Learning Network books , one that collects 100 of the best student essays from this contest all in one place, categorized by subjects like “Teenage Life Online,” “Gender and Sexuality” and “Sports and Gaming,” and the other a related teacher’s guide to using them in the classroom.

Here is a roundup of ideas from 17 teachers and students for ways to use these “authentic, powerful and unafraid” student essays in several classroom contexts.

Finally, two new entries in our Annotated by the Author series feature student editorial contest winners from 2020 discussing their work and sharing tips: Ananya Udaygiri on “How Animal Crossing Will Save the World” and Abel John on “Collar the Cat!”

Get Practical Tips From Our Related Videos and Webinars

The video above, “ How to Write an Editorial ,” is only three minutes long, but in it Andy Rosenthal, the former editor of the Times Opinion page, gives students seven great pieces of advice.

Both students and teachers are welcome to watch our popular on-demand 2017 webinar, “ Write to Change the World: Crafting Persuasive Pieces With Help From Nicholas Kristof and the Times Op-Ed Page ,” which includes a wealth of practical tips from Mr. Kristof, as well as from Kabby Hong, a Wisconsin English teacher who works with this contest annually, and his student, Daina Kalnina, whose 2017 essay was one of our top winners that year.

Finally, you can watch our 2021 on-demand webinar, Teaching Argumentative Writing , that focuses on two key steps in the process: finding your argument, and using evidence to support it. You will also get broad overview of how to use our writing prompts and the work of our student winners to help your own students find topics they care about, and craft solid arguments around them. You can also watch an edited version of this webinar below.

Enter Our New Student Open Letter Contest: March 13-April 17, 2024

The culmination of this unit? Our new Open Letter Contest.

An open letter is a published letter of protest or appeal usually addressed to an individual but intended for the general public. Martin Luther King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail , the recent letter signed by over 1,000 tech leaders about the dangers of A.I. and this funny 2020 letter addressed to Harry and Meghan are all examples of this rich tradition.

Just as we did for our long-running Editorial Contest, we invite students to make an argument in 450 words about something that matters to them, and persuade us that we should care, too. But this time, students must address themselves to a specific target audience or recipient, institution or group — one that has the power to make meaningful change.

Whether students choose their parents, teachers, school board members or mayor; a member of Congress; the head of a corporation; or a metonym like “Silicon Valley” or “The Kremlin,” they should ask themselves, What do I care about? Who can make changes, big or small, local or global, to address my issue or problem? What specifically do I want them to understand and do? And how can I write this as an “open letter,” meaningful not just to me and the recipient, but to a general audience?

More information will be published soon. Until then, you can find ideas and inspiration in our related writing unit and via the work of past Editorial winners .

As always, all student work will be read by our staff, volunteers from the Times Opinion section, and/or by educators from around the country. Winners will have their work published on our site and, perhaps, in the print New York Times.