Three studies within this dissertation investigated 2nd through 8th grade students’ productive use of academic language in their argumentative essays (N = 741 essays). Despite the prominence of argumentative writing in the Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), little research has been conducted on specific reasoning strategies and the lexical precision to signal arguments in elementary and early adolescent writing. Using quantitative and natural language processing methods, I examined argumentative reasoning and connective types (and their relations) in students’ independently written essays.
In Study 1, I analyzed 385 argumentative essays written by a sample of 385 2nd and 3rd grade students (one essay per student). All students wrote about the same topic, and essays were coded for arguments, argument sophistication, and connectives. Controlling for grade and essay length, reading comprehension had a significant positive association with argument sophistication in the essays. When connective types were added to the model, and again controlling for essay length and grade, reading comprehension and adversative connectives both had significant positive associations with argument sophistication in the essays.
In Study 2, I analyzed 198 argumentative essays written by a sample of 66 4th and 5th grade students (3 essays per student). Fourth and 5th grade students wrote about different topics, and essays were coded for arguments, argument sophistication, connectives, and connectives sophistication. Controlling for topic, essay length, and ethnicity variables, reading comprehension had a significant positive association with argument sophistication. When a measure of connectives sophistication was added to the model, reading comprehension no longer had a significant association with argument sophistication, and connectives sophistication also did not have a significant association with argument sophistication. However, adding connective types to the model explained an additional 7% of the variance, and adversative connectives had a significant positive association with argument sophistication in the essays.
In Study 3, I analyzed 158 argumentative essays written by a sample of 40 6th through 8th grade students (3 or 4 essays per student). Students in all grades wrote about the same four topics. Essays were coded for arguments and argument sophistication, and a natural language processing tool (Tool for the Automated Analysis of Cohesion, TAACO; Crossley, Kyle, & McNamara, 2016) calculated categories of connectives. Controlling for length and topic, adversative connectives had a significant positive association with argument sophistication.
Findings from this dissertation underscore that 2nd through 8th grade students marshal academic language in their argumentative writing in specific ways that are unlikely to be elucidated in holistic measures of writing quality. Findings also indicate that certain linguistic features (i.e., adversative connectives) are related to more complex arguments in these students’ essays.
|Commitee:||Lawrence, Joshua, Kim, Young-Suk, Collins, Penelope, Pearl, Lisa|
|School:||University of California, Irvine|
|Department:||Education - Ph.D.|
|School Location:||United States -- California|
|Source:||DAI-A 81/4(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational psychology, Elementary education, Middle School education, Language arts|
|Keywords:||Academic language, Argumentative writing, Elementary writing, Middle school writing, Reasoning, Vocabulary|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be