Skip to main content

Upper Secondary School Students’ Design of Arguments in Essays Cover

Upper Secondary School Students’ Design of Arguments in Essays

Designs for Learning

Volume 14 (2022): Issue 1

By: Eva Svärdemo Åberg

Open Access

|Jun 2022

Abstract

This article explores how arguments are made in student essays through the use of writing and visual resources. The data set comprises 54 essays with a passing grade from students in their final year of upper secondary school in Sweden. The data is analysed using a multimodal approach to knowledge representation on arguments in essays, involving analysis of textual composition and content in both written text and visual resources. The study gives an insight into how students design essays in relation to academic requirements, how their arguments realise epistemological commitments, and what affordances are given through the use of writing and visual resources. The results reveal that academic argumentation varies considerably between the essays. There is an overrepresentation of written and declarative knowledge in the essays, where the arguments are grounded in various web-based sources, and visualisations are used for making conceptualisation and classification more salient in writing. Both written and visual resources offer affordances in the making of arguments on the bases of the modes for communication. This article concludes that there are many high demands of knowledge defined for the task of preparing for higher education, which are not easily represented in the students’ arguments in essays.

References

Åkerfeldt, A., & Svärdemo Åberg, E. (2021). Designs for learning – a research approach. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 7(4), 547–555. DOI: 10.12973/ijem.7.4.547
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Archer, A. (2010). Multimodal text in higher education and the implications for writing pedagogy. English in Education, 44(3), 201–213. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-8845.2010.01073.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Archer, A. (2016). Multimodal Academic Argument: Ways of Organising Knowledge across Writing and Image. In R. Fidalgo and T. Olive (Series Eds.) and A. Archer and E. O. Breuer (Vol Eds.), Studies in Writing: Vol. 33, Multimodality in higher Education, 93–113. Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004312067_007
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ask, S. (2007). Vägar till ett akademiskt skriftspråk. [Paths to an academic written language]. Växjö universitet, Institutionen för Humaniora.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy, lives and learning. Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Björklund Boistrup, L., & Selander, S. (2021). (eds) Designs for research, teaching and learning. A framework for future education. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003096498
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. DOI: 10.1080/15544800903076044
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Danielsson, K., & Selander, S. (2016). Se texten! Multimodala texter i ämnesdidaktiskt arbete. [See the text! Multimodal texts in subject didactic work]. Gleerups.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Groarke, L. (2015). Going Multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and Why Does it Matter. Argumentation, 29, 133–155. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Higgins, S. (2014). Critical thinking for 21st-century education: A cyber-tooth curriculum? PROSPECTS, 44(4), 559–574. DOI: 10.1007/s11125-014-9323-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Howell, E., Butler, T., & Reinking, D. (2017). Integrating Multimodal Arguments Into High School Writing Instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(2), 181–209. DOI: 10.1177/1086296X17700456
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huang, C.-W., & Archer, A. (2017). ‘Academic literacies’ as moving beyond writing: Investigating multimodal approaches to academic argument. London Reviews of Education, 15(1), 63-72. DOI: 10.18546/LRE.15.1.06
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics, 23/2, Oxford University Press. 215–239. DOI: 10.1093/applin/23.2.215
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education, 18(3), 220–245. DOI: 10.1080/09500780408666877
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kim, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). Synergies: effects of source representation and goal instructions on evidence quality, reasoning, and conceptual integration during argumentation-driven inquiry. Instructional Science, 44, 441–476. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-016-9381-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kress, G. (1989). ‘Texture and meaning’. In R. Andrews (ed.) Narrative and Argument. Open University Press, 9–21.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203299234
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic perspective to contemporary communication. Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kress, G. (2017). Semiotic work: design, transformation, transduction. In E. Insulander, S. Kjällander, F. Lindstrand, and A. Åkerfeldt (eds.), Didaktik i omvandlingens tid. Text, representation, design. Liber.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kress, G., & Selander, S. (2011). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 265–268. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lea, M., & Stierer, B. (2000). Students writing in higher education: new context. London; Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open U.P.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacy approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–173. DOI: 10.1080/03075079812331380364
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lea, M., & Street, B. (2006). The “Academic Literacies” Model: Theory and Applications. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 227–236. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ledin, P. (2001). Genrebegreppet – en forskningsöversikt. [The genre concept – a research overview]. Studentlitteratur.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). New direction in academic literacies. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 5–32.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lindstrand, F., & Selander, S. (2022). Design in learning and rhizomatics webs. L. Björklund Boistrup and S. Selander (eds.), Designs for research, teaching and learning. A framework for future education. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003096498-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Macken-Horarik, M., Devereux, L., Trimingham-Jack, C., & Wilson, K. (2006). Negotiating the territory of tertiary literacies: A case study of teacher education. Linguistics and Education, 17(3), 240–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.11.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Matta, C. (2019). Qualitative Research Methods and Evidential Reasoning. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 49(5), 385–412. DOI: 10.1177/0048393119862858
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mitchell, S., & Riddle, M. (2000). Improving the quality of argument in higher education. Final Report. School of Lifelong Learning and Education: Middlesex University.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Newell, D. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VaDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A Review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 273–304.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Northedge, A. (2003). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 17–32. DOI: 10.1080/1356251032000052302
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nygren, T., & Guath, M. (2019). Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to determine digital news credibility. Nordicom review, 40(1), 23–42. DOI: 10.2478/nor-2019-0002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520. DOI: 10.3102/0034654313487606
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Selander, S. (2017). Didaktiken efter Vygotskij – Design för lärande. [Didactic after Vygotskij – Design for learning]. Liber.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Selander, S., & Kress, G. (2010). Design för lärande. Ett multimodalt perspektiv. [Design for learning. A multimodal perspective]. Nordstedts.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Svärdemo Åberg, E., Calissendorff, M., & Ståhle, Y. (2018). Förberedd för högskolestudier? En studie av hur “vetenskapligt grundat arbetssätt” tar skriftspråklig form i svenska gymnasiearbeten inom samhällsvetenskapsprogrammet. I Utbildning & lärande. 12(2), 7–23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Swedish Education Act, SFS. (2010:800). [Svensk skollag], https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Swedish National Agency for Education. (2012). [Gymnasiearbete för högskoleförberedande examen. Gymnasiearbetet – en introduktionstext]. https://www.skolverket.se
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Solli, A. (2019). Handling socio-scientific controversy: Students’ reasoning through digital inquiry. University of Gothenburg.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thomas, G. (2011). The case: Generalisation, theory and phronesis in case study. Oxford Review of Education, 37(1), 21–35. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2010.521622
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20358
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ Helping students understand what essays is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Springer. 7–38. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4996-X_2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Figures & tables

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.174 | Journal eISSN: 2001-7480

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 85 - 98

Submitted on: May 2, 2021

|

Accepted on: May 30, 2022

|

Published on: Jun 28, 2022

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

upper secondary school,

© 2022 Eva Svärdemo Åberg, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 14 (2022): Issue 1

Previous article