Page 311 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 311
ching the writing of argumentative genre through imitatio:
a solid basis for the ‘beginner’ writers 311
5. Results
5.1. Qualitative Analysis
The students’ first, free written argumentative letter (Text A) re-
vealed the necessity of accurate instruction of argumentative writing.
First, the prevalence of a written narrative schemata became obvious.
Five students (N = 5, 21,7 % in the total sample) didn’t respond to the
demand of writing a letter. On the contrary, they developed the subject
in the only well-known method, the narration. For example:
It was Friday, the day of the assembly for examining if my beloved tree
should be cut down. The majority supported the opinion that it should, defi-
nitely, be cut down. I had to react quickly. The only solution was to send a let-
ter to the mayor. […] (Yannis)
Emphasis was placed on the chronological organization of personal
experiences with the beloved tree:
Well, I and my friends we have grown up with that tree. We were 7 years
old when we played over there. When we were 8 years old we played on the
swing and now that we have turned 10 years old we have made a tree-house
and you want to cut it down. (Konstantinos)
Second, students’ writing revealed their limited prior knowledge in
developing arguments. The mean of the produced arguments was low.
The initial letters were very short in length, while stylistic elements were
scarcely present.
The majority of written arguments was presented either in the in-
troduction or in the conclusion of the texts, while the rest of the letter
was, mainly, dedicated to recalling personal memories. Even when ar-
guments were given in an explicit form, they usually made part of the
knowledge-telling model of writing (i). For example:
(i) I ask you not to cut down my neighbourhood’s tree because I used to play
over there, to climb and to sit on its branches. (Minas)
In the second text (Text B), students as sensible citizens developed
a more accurate and extended argumentation in order to support their
thesis based on a critical interaction with the problem emerged (Terrill,
2011: 301). For example:
Resolving this problem is crucial for all the children of our neighbourhood,
because we are the habitants of the zone and you can’t take decisions against
our rights. (Thanos)
Two were the main persuasive strategies used: 1) First, the removal
of personal experiences. Students approached the interests’ of the receiv-
a solid basis for the ‘beginner’ writers 311
5. Results
5.1. Qualitative Analysis
The students’ first, free written argumentative letter (Text A) re-
vealed the necessity of accurate instruction of argumentative writing.
First, the prevalence of a written narrative schemata became obvious.
Five students (N = 5, 21,7 % in the total sample) didn’t respond to the
demand of writing a letter. On the contrary, they developed the subject
in the only well-known method, the narration. For example:
It was Friday, the day of the assembly for examining if my beloved tree
should be cut down. The majority supported the opinion that it should, defi-
nitely, be cut down. I had to react quickly. The only solution was to send a let-
ter to the mayor. […] (Yannis)
Emphasis was placed on the chronological organization of personal
experiences with the beloved tree:
Well, I and my friends we have grown up with that tree. We were 7 years
old when we played over there. When we were 8 years old we played on the
swing and now that we have turned 10 years old we have made a tree-house
and you want to cut it down. (Konstantinos)
Second, students’ writing revealed their limited prior knowledge in
developing arguments. The mean of the produced arguments was low.
The initial letters were very short in length, while stylistic elements were
scarcely present.
The majority of written arguments was presented either in the in-
troduction or in the conclusion of the texts, while the rest of the letter
was, mainly, dedicated to recalling personal memories. Even when ar-
guments were given in an explicit form, they usually made part of the
knowledge-telling model of writing (i). For example:
(i) I ask you not to cut down my neighbourhood’s tree because I used to play
over there, to climb and to sit on its branches. (Minas)
In the second text (Text B), students as sensible citizens developed
a more accurate and extended argumentation in order to support their
thesis based on a critical interaction with the problem emerged (Terrill,
2011: 301). For example:
Resolving this problem is crucial for all the children of our neighbourhood,
because we are the habitants of the zone and you can’t take decisions against
our rights. (Thanos)
Two were the main persuasive strategies used: 1) First, the removal
of personal experiences. Students approached the interests’ of the receiv-
