The Effect Of Online Reading On Argumentative Essay Writing Quality

Antoon De Rycker, Prema Ponnudurai

Abstract


In tertiary education in Malaysia, essay-writing assignments are central to most English as a Second Language (ESL) courses. Often reading texts are used as a stimulus to better writing but it has not yet been extensively researched whether these texts should be presented on screen or on paper. This study examines which of these two presentation modes, viz., interactive online reading or print-based reading, help today’s ICT-literate generation of Malaysian students write better argumentative essays. The rationale is that interactive online reading motivates these students more, and that this higher task motivation in its turn leads to more successful task performance. Using a quasi-experimental, between-subjects research design, we elicited a total of 90 essays (31,207 words), 44 of which written by students reading the input text online and 46 by students reading the same text on paper. The quality of argumentation was analysed, using a modified three-way version of Harrell’s (2005) coding rubric: thesis, support and counter-arguments. Our comparative study shows that 61% of all essays are ‘good’, with 39% rated as ‘average’ to ‘poor’. Results indicate that the interactive online reading condition yields superior task performance and that it also produces proportionately more essays with a ‘good’ thesis statement. Both findings are statistically significant. Essays with a ‘good’ thesis are more likely to contain ‘good’ support though not always ‘good’ counter-arguments.  Counter-argumentation remains underdeveloped for both conditions. As a springboard to better argumentative content, ICT-enabled reading-based activities may not suffice, leaving room for other pedagogic interventions.


Keywords


interactive online reading, print reading, English as a Second Language, reading-based writing, argumentative essay.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Andrew, R. (Ed.) (2004). The impact of ICT on literacy education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Asención-Delaney, Y. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 140–150.

Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 191–208.

Baker, J. (2003). The impact of paging vs. scrolling on reading online text passages. Usability News, 5(1), n. pag. (Online) Retrieved 15 July 2010, from http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews

Berk, R. (2009). Teaching strategies for the Net generation. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 3(2), 1–24.

Boscolo, P., Ariasi, N., Del Favero, L., & Ballarin, C. (2011). Interest in an expository text: How does it flow from reading to writing? Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 467–480.

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

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gebril, A. (2009). Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all? Language Testing, 26(4), 507–531.

Gleason, M. (1999). The role of evidence in argumentative writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(1), 81–106.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2009). Teaching the written language. In K. Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 439–463). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Harley, T. (2008). The psychology of language: From data to theory (3rd. ed.). Hove: Psychology Press.

Harrell, M. (2005). Grading according to a rubric. Teaching Philosophy, 28(1), 3–15.

Hsieh, P., & Dwyer, F. (2009). The instructional effect of online reading strategies and learning styles on student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 36–50.

Kachru, Y. (2006). Culture and argumentative writing in World Englishes. In K. Bolton & B. Kachru, (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol. 5 (pp. 19–36). Abingdon: Routledge.

Kellogg, R., & Whiteford, A. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–260.

Mangen, A. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: Haptics and immersion. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(4), 404–419.

Noorizah Mohd Noor (2006). Reading academic text: Awareness and Experiences Among University ESL Learners. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 6(2), 65–78.

Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111–129.

Punie, Y., Zinnbauer, D., & Cabrera, M. (2006). A review of the impact of ICT on learning. Working paper prepared for DG EAC. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Ramage J., Bean, J., & Johnson, J. (2009). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Reece, I., & Walker, S. (2003). Teaching, training and learning: A practical guide (5th ed.). Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.

Reed, S. (2010). Cognition: Theory and application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Stakhnevich, J. (2002). Reading on the Web: Implications for ESL professionals. The Reading Matrix, 2(2), 1–8.

Tan Kim Hua & Liaw Meng Lai. (2009). Empowering Malaysian readers to read online. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 360–379.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Usó-Juan, E., & Ruiz-Madrid, N. (2009). Reading printed versus online texts: A study of EFL learners' strategic reading behavior. International Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 59–79.

Wolfe, C., Britt, M., & Butler, J. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183–209.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021