13

Analyzing Argumentative Essay

as an Academic Genre on Assessment
Framework of IELTS and TOEFL
Zulfiqar Ahmad

1 Introduction
One of the key functions of writing pedagogy in academic contexts is
to facilitate student writers gain membership of their specific discourse
communities via acquisition of the contemporary practices in the domain
of academic literacy. This entails that the students should be trained,
through awareness raising and practical tasks, in developing familiarity
with and expertise in a variety of text types or genres they will encounter
in their academic life. One such genre is the essay which Hyland (2009,
p. 132) calls the “acculturation practice” and aims at developing descrip-
tive, analytical, and critical skills of the student writers through exposi-
tion and argumentation. Its significance for students can be seen from the
fact that it not only develops their academic knowledge but also social-
izes them to assimilate socio-culturally embedded literacy conventions
(Hyland, 2009).

Z. Ahmad (*) 
PhD Scholar, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
© The Author(s) 2019 279
S. Hidri (ed.), English Language Teaching Research in the Middle East
and North Africa, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98533-6_13
280    
Z. Ahmad

Many researchers (e.g., Németh & Kormos, 2001; Tankó & Tamási,
2008) have referred to the centrality of argumentative essay in aca-
demic discourse across the globe. It is more important for English as
a Foreign or Second Language (EFL/ESL) students who plan to study
abroad and, thereby, required to take internationally recognized lan-
guage proficiency tests such as the International English Language
Testing Systems (IELTS) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL). Argumentative essay is task 2 of the writing component on
both tests. Equally crucial is the assessment of the task which is done
by trained and experienced raters on set criteria. Since establishing a
concrete and universally acceptable construct of writing proficiency is
too complex a task to achieve, the reliability and validity of assessment
in IELTS and TOEFL is not without its limitations, and calls for a new
set of assessment standards to see whether they yield more authentic
assessment results for not only the candidates on both these tests but
also for students of academic writing attempting the argumentative
essay.

2 Theoretical Background
Argumentation as a sub-genre of the academic essay involves contro-
versy usually stated in a proposition statement. According to Tankó and
Tamási (2008), pedagogy typically employs four types of questions to
resolve conflict in the argument: fact, definition, values, and policy. In
this traditional model of argumentation, questions of fact pertain to
existential or factual information; questions of definition classify issues
as they are; questions of value assign salience to things or concepts; and
questions of policy identify actions about how to figure out the contro-
versy. Typically, an argumentative essay involves a debatable topic that
can invite arguments in favor and against the topic as well as the writer’s
specific stance on the subject. Several rhetorical strategies such as the use
of comparison-contrast, fact-figure, cause–effect patterns are employed
to make the argument persuasive—the mainstay of an argumentative
essay (Chala & Chapetón, 2012).
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
281

Argumentative essay has been discussed in different scholarly conven-

tions such as in logic (Toulmin, 2003) for its potential for reasoning and
analysis, in contrastive rhetoric (Connor, 1987, 1990; Kaplan, 1966,
1984) for its emphasis on text organization patterns and cultural vari-
ations, in World Englishes (Kachru & Smith, 2008) for its realization in
different varieties; in critical linguistics (Van Dijk, 1980) for its adoption
of sociopolitically motivated discursive practices; and in cognitive linguis-
tics (Carrell, 1982) for the underlying schema that determines comprehen-
sion and organization of discourse. However, it was in Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL) traditions (Eggins, 1994; Martin, 2001) and the English
for Specific Purpose (ESP) (Hyland, 1990, 2004, 2009; Swales, 1990) that
argumentative essay found its most comprehensive description and analysis.
In SFL theory, register or context of situation and genre or context of
culture determine which shape and meaning the text will assume. In
other words, choice in terms of language features within one text as well
as between different texts comes from the contextual factors so that the
meaning is realized in ideational (writer’s world view), interpersonal
(engagement of the writer with the audience) and textual (about tex-
ture and text organization) metafunctions. In ESP traditions, the con-
cept of register and genre refers to those practices in the academic world
whereby student writers develop knowledge of specialist writing in aca-
demic and professional settings.
Bruce (2008) suggests that ESP employs genre knowledge to dissect
the text in its respective stages, moves, and steps which is then employed
in teaching the language and generic functions. Hyland (1990) men-
tions that the generic structure of an argumentative essay is realized in
three stages: thesis, argument and conclusion. The overall generic struc-
ture spills down to create more microstructures in each stage which can
be named moves. These moves may be essential or optional elements in
the system of argumentation. Lower down the hierarchy of these moves
is the lexico-grammatical system which transforms these moves in dif-
ferent forms. Hence, producing an argumentative essay in academic
contexts becomes a multifaceted activity involving various dimensions
of cognition, rhetorical traditions, linguistic system, and socio-cultural
context. Figure 1 taken from Chala and Chapetón (2012) illustrates this
dynamism.
282    
Z. Ahmad

2.1 Argument Structure and Typical Language

Features

So far, there have been different models or frameworks for the organiza-
tion of argumentative essay which Eggins (1994, p. 89) dubs as “generic
structures.” Toulmin (2003), for instance, proposes that every argument
is based on three main elements: claim, data, and warrant. Over the
time, these elements have been modified and renamed to suit the peda-
gogic needs in different contexts (e.g., Maimon, Peritz, & Yancey, 2007;
The Purdue Owl Purdue University Online Writing Lab, 2007; Troyka,
2004). A claim may be understood as conclusion, assertion or opinion;
data can be dubbed as grounds, reasons, premises, support, or evidence;
a warrant may refer to a link or an assumption (ibid.). Apart from these
basic argument elements, there are some sub-elements such as the rebut-
tal which is a response to the stance against a claim. A rebuttal may be
extended to rebuttal claim and rebuttal data. Similarly, counterargu-
ment refers to those differing opinions that challenge the authenticity of
a writer’s claim. Counterargument, like rebuttal, can be further catego-
rized as counterargument claim and counterargument data.
These argument structures and substructures are evident in the lan-
guage system and semantic structure of the argumentative essay. Qin
and Karabacak (2010) found out that two linguistic patterns were used
to identify claims: (a) statements such as “I think,” “I believe”, “In my
opinion” and (b) assertions such as “without doubt, we should search the
Internet wisely.” To identify data, explicit subordinators such as “because,”
and prepositional phrases, such as “for that reason” and “for one thing”
were used. Similarly, typical signal words and phrases, for example, “It is
said that. but.;” “Some people claim that however.;” “although,” “despite,”
and “even though,” were employed to indicate the presence of a counter-
argument statement and a rebuttal statement. But there should be cogni-
zance among the assessors of argumentation that these semantic structures
and language features help only to identify the explicit presence of ele-
ments of the argument structure. Student writers, especially the expert
ones, sometimes are implicit in their use of these elements, and the asses-
sors are expected to use their discretion while evaluating such texts for
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
283

academic assessment purposes. Mickan, Slater, and Gibson (2000) point

out that a typical argumentative essay employs linguistic features:

1. to refer to generic or nonhuman participants (e.g., use of passive to

achieve objectivity)
2. to nominalize and use abstract technical terms in the attempt to
establish objectivity
3. to develop an argument and persuade the reader through the organi-
zation of coherent text, for example relational processes and conjunc-
tions to stage the argument
4. to compress information and be concise through, for example,
nominalization.

2.2 Assessment of Academic Writing

Assessment in academic contexts can be a tool to gauge performance

via summative assessment or motivate learning through formative tasks
(Nicol, 2009). However, assessment of writing in academic contexts is
quite a challenging issue for variations in the understanding and inter-
pretation of the concept of writing construct (Weigle, 2002) with the
result that linking marking criteria with the learning outcomes of the
course cannot be fully justified (Brown & Hudson, 2002). Research has
demonstrated that even after completion of the academic courses, many
ESL students fail to produce written work satisfactory to the demands
of the academia (Birell, 2006; Bretag, 2007).
Discourse analytic approach has been mainly used to assess aca-
demic writing with a focus on linguistic features that could provide
measurement of students’ performance in relation to the assessment
construct used by the raters (Cumming & Mellow, 1996). The assess-
ment of linguistic features in academic writing has been studied by
many researchers and some of the significant areas include coherence,
register, audience analysis (Kennedy & Thorp, 2002); error analysis,
sentence structure, argument structure at the sentence level (Theme
analysis) and discourse level (genres) (Mayor, Hewings, North, Swann,
284    
Z. Ahmad

& Coffin, 1999); cohesion, lexical range, syntactic variation and gram-
matical accuracy (Banerjee, Franceschina, & Smith, 2007); nominaliza-
tion, passive constructions and diversity of sentence types (Frase, Faletti,
Ginther, & Grant, 1999). However, discourse analytic approach does
not account for non-linguistic features such as quality of the content,
originality of ideas, and creativity of thought. Discourse is composed of
many other features that may include the social context, affective, and
cognitive dimensions (Rose, 1984). Validity and reliability are the two
oft quoted assessment concepts that are used in regard to evaluating
written discourse. These concepts depend on other variable such as reli-
ability of scoring, rater training, task types, and washback for authentic
analysis (Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008, pp. 91–92)
Determining a valid and reliable construct for academic writ-
ing is extremely difficult (Cumming, 2001). For instance, the process
approach to writing includes brainstorming, planning, drafting, and
revising, but the writing task which is assessed is constrained by time,
and does not provide for the application of all cognitive processes
involved in the production of the text (Breland, Bridgeman, & Fowles,
1999). In addition, a writing task set for assessment is usually for the
examination purposes and therefore, decontextualized and may include
heterogeneity of topics that involve different skills and language use and
may also clash with the interests of the writers (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).
Cumming (1989) has pointed to another issue of relating general lin-
guistic ability with writing expertise which have individual contribu-
tions to make to writing as a process and a product. Finally, the quality
of writing is judged by compliance with the writing rubrics which runs
counter with the construct validity and tests are vulnerable to measure
the construct of compliance to the rubric rather than the construct of
writing (Nichols & Berliner, 2005).
Nevertheless, academic writing is assessed either by the course teacher
or the raters who have been found practicing different marking stand-
ards. On the one side, there are cultural expectations of the lecturers
who expect NNS writers to produce written work compatible with their
expectations, and so they look for deficit in the language features or aca-
demic study skills (Zhu, 2004). Then there is a tendency to show toler-
ance toward learners’ errors of English usage by assessing their writing
differently from NS students (Jenkins, Jordan, & Weilland, 1993).
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
285

The important role of rubrics, although not without limitations, in the

assessment of academic writing cannot be underestimated (Weigle, 2002).
There are basically two types of written tasks in academic contexts: per-
formance based and classroom based. These tasks are assessed by course
teachers or the raters in case of performance-based tests. Both the versions
assign a score which is relative to the scoring descriptors and embodies the
underlying construct or ability being assessed (Becker, 2011).

2.3 Assessment Rubric for IELTS and TOEFL

Argumentative essay which is task 2 on IELTS Academic and General

Modules is assessed on four descriptors: task achievement; cohesion and
coherence; lexical resource; and grammatical range and accuracy for a
band scale range from 0 (non-user) to 9 (expert user) (Appendix 1). Band
9 which is the highest possible score requires the test-takers to respond
to all parts of the task by taking a clear stance on the topic supported by
relevant details. Features of cohesion and coherence require that the text
appropriately creates logical links between ideas and paragraphs. Lexical
resource refers to the natural, varied, and subject-specific use of the lexical
items. Use of grammatical range and accuracy entail that the essay pre-
sents a wide range of syntactic structures which are grammatically accu-
rate. This benchmark flows down to eight levels and down the hierarchy
is a measurement scale where no band is awarded either due to the can-
didate’s failure to produce any text or a text which clearly shows that the
production is the outcome of memorization.
TOEFL iBT-independent writing task is scored on the overall qual-
ity of the writing: development, organization, and appropriate and
precise use of grammar and vocabulary (ETS, 2008, p. 26); the essays
are scored holistically by certified raters on a scale of 0 to 5 using the
Independent Writing Rubrics (ibid., p. 46). The assessment rubrics look
into writing aspects such as task completion, text organization, textuality,
lexical appropriacy and syntactic variation. The highest rated essay would
“effectively address the topic and the task,” would be well-structured
and employing different rhetorical functions, would be cohesive and
coherent, and display functional use of language marked by lexical vari-
ety and syntactic accuracy. The lowest grade essay would merely copy
286    
Z. Ahmad

words from the topic, reject the topic, or otherwise not connect to the
topic, be written in a foreign language, consist of keystroke characters,
or be blank.

2.4 Issues with Assessment Rubrics for IELTS

and TOEFL

Research on the assessment standards for IELTS and TOEFL have

brought forward several issues inherent in the rubrics and grading sys-
tem of both the tests. For instance, Breland et al. (1999) mention that
ETS researchers recognize low reliability (.60) for the essays graded even
by two raters on TOEFL examination. Similarly, a study by Veerapan
and Sulaiman (2012) found inconsistency in inter-rater reliability as
different raters awarded different marks for the same essay. Both IELTS
and TOEFL are taken by candidates with varying degree of proficiency
in the second language (L2) and this leads to issues of content and cri-
terion validity. For instance, a Foundation Year level candidate takes the
same test as an undergraduate or a post graduate. This questions the
construct of writing as well as the assessment criteria. The raters may
find scoring rubrics too vague to best describe the writing quality. In
this context, Weigle (2006) points out that

graded writing is virtually always done in response to other texts that have
been read and/or discussed orally. Thus the task of writing an essay on a
previously unseen topic, with little or no opportunity to explore the topic
through interaction with other texts on the topic, is a highly inauthentic
task as it does not represent the contextual factors of authentic academic
writing. (pp. 224–225)

Another aspect of the lack of authenticity is that no information is

given “about the audience, purpose, etc., to help test-takers contextual-
ize their essay” (Chalhoub-Deville & Turner, 2000, p. 534). Moreover,
IELTS and TOEFL adopt holistic approach to assessing writing which
as an assessment procedure does not provide reliable data on writing
performance (Elbow, 1996).
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
287

Both the tests fail to include some of the very basic tenets of assess-
ment that are typical of academic settings. Following Baume and
Baume (1996), IELTS and TOEFL are administered independently
of a formal course module and therefore, fail to ascertain the extent to
which the learning outcomes have been achieved. Similarly, they do not
provide adequate feedback on the test-takers’ performance except for
the final scores. The test-taker cannot get a fuller understanding of his
writing strengths and weaknesses, and cannot devise effective work plan
and learning strategies for further improvement. Since the tests evalu-
ate individual student’s performance and the results are available and
relevant to the test-taker only, there is very limited washback effect. The
institutions do not have access to results and it becomes almost impos-
sible to determine the adequacy of appropriate pedagogic and academic
standards.
From this perspective, reliability and validity of these standardized
tests also come under question. Writing is a process which involves
complex working of the cognitive processes during the production of
a text as a piece of discourse. IELTS and TOEFL do not allow suffi-
cient time for the appropriate functioning of these cognitive elements
in the creation of texts (Breland et al., 1999). Moreover, these tests are
formal examinations disassociated from either personal or institutional
contexts, and include argumentative topics on a variety of issues that
involve varying skills and linguistic ability which often run counter
with the test-takers ability, knowledge, interest and context (Grabe &
Kaplan, 1996). In addition, IELTS and TOEFL target general writing
ability as the rubrics can be used to assess not only the argumentative
but any other genre of writing. Adherence to writing rubrics is the most
crucial variable in both IELTS and TOEFL. This entails that compli-
ance with the writing rubrics, in fact a challenge to the construct valid-
ity, takes preference over the writing quality.
Following SFL and ESP traditions on the construct of writing as a
socio-culturally embedded activity, there is an acute need to revisit
assessment criteria for IELTS and TOFEL which adopt a purely linguis-
tic approach to assessing argumentative writing. Vygotsky (1978) found
construction of meaning as an outcome of a strong link between the
writer and the social context. This notion was further corroborated by
288    
Z. Ahmad

Rogoff (1990) who refers to a blended interface of context and cogni-

tion as decisive determinants of literacy practices. This entails that aca-
demic literacy cannot be divorced from the socio-cultural context in
which it is conceived and practiced. Different cultures have different
views of argumentation; for instance, Arab culture is not as open to crit-
ical judgment and independent opinion as is the British or American.
Similarly, Arabic is a reader-responsible language resulting in discourse
which is context embedded (Mohamed & Omer, 2000) as opposed
to English which is writer-responsible and therefore, text-based. Most
Asian cultures have very clear power-relation patterns which affect the
mode of argumentation in a variety of ways.
Mickan et al. (2000) point out that socio-cultural information embed-
ded in the task are crucial to test-takers’ understanding of the task
prompts. This contributes to candidates’ uncertainty about their interpre-
tations of the task which in turn influences the way candidates respond
to the task. Candidates use information in the task as well as their inter-
nalized social knowledge about the purposes and structures of the text
including the lexico-grammatical resources for the realization of their
knowledge in the text, for the creation of their responses. These aspects
and many other should be reckoned with while assessing EFL/ESL stu-
dent writers’ texts. The model/framework of assessment for the argu-
mentative essay presented below is an attempt to include most of these
decisive variables of assessment that define and identify argumentation as
a distinct academic genre.

2.5 A Framework of Assessment

for Argumentative Essay

An attempt has been made to move away from the assessment stand-
ards of IELTS and TOEFL, and create a new set of criteria which
though not fully divorced from these two standardized tests include
some of the missing elements such as the planning and revising of
texts, rhetorical structure and functions, socio-cultural context and
discourse community specificity. In addition, the holistic approach to
assessment has been maintained on the premise that properly trained
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
289

assessors or raters can be trusted to use the rubrics and discretion in

grading the essays. As such, assessment descriptors have been set on
a point scale from 0 to 5, and simplified to allow for rater discretion
which is assumed to be relevant to the teaching and learning purposes,
test settings, and candidate’s socio-cultural context. These criteria can
be used for assessment of the argumentative essay which is attempted
in an academic setting as a course module requirement as well as for
a context where candidates are preparing themselves for IELTS or
TOEFL (Table 1).
Piloting of these criteria is suggested in order to obtain empirical
evidence on their usefulness, reliability, and validity. However, it would
be more practical to familiarize the raters with the theoretical orienta-
tion of the argumentative essay, assessment of academic writing, and
use of assessment criteria for argumentation before setting them to
grade the texts. Similarly, it would be a good idea to conduct a few
inter-rater sessions to ascertain accuracy of assessment by the raters of
the same text.
Table 2 presents a detailed description of the assessment criteria
which will be assessed on the grading scheme presented in Table 1. Key
words/phrases that distinguish difference among the six-point rating
scale have been highlighted and underlined for an easy referral by the
raters.

Table 1  A model of grading scheme for the argumentative essay

Assessment descriptors 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total
1 Task planning and
completion
2 Argument structure/text
organization
3 Textuality
4 Socio-cultural context &
discourse community
specificity
5 Lexico-grammar
Total score /25
Table 2  A model of assessment rubrics for the argumentative essay

Task descriptor Description Points

Task planning & The essay shows that the ideas have been adequately brainstormed, planned, and out- 5
completion lined before production. The text appropriately responds to all parts/dimensions of the
290    

task and provides relevant and complete answers. The essay has been fully revised and
edited and shows clear evidence of language/text repair
The essay shows that the ideas have been sufficiently brainstormed, planned, and out- 4
Z. Ahmad

lined before production. The text responds to almost all parts/dimensions of the task
and provides relevant and complete answers with minor details missing though. The
essay has been revised and edited and shows some evidence of language/text repair
The essay shows that the ideas have been somewhat brainstormed, planned, and out- 3
lined before production. The text responds to most but not all parts/dimensions of the
task and provides slightly relevant but incomplete answers. The essay has not been fully
revised and edited and shows no evidence of language/text repair
The essay shows that the ideas have not been brainstormed, planned, and outlined 2
before production. The text responds to only a few parts/dimensions of the task but
does not provide relevant and complete answers. The essay has not been revised and
edited and does not show evidence of language/text repair
The essay shows that the ideas have not been brainstormed, planned, and outlined 1
before production. The text does not respond to any parts/dimensions of the task and
provides irrelevant and incomplete answers. The essay has not been revised and edited
and shows no evidence of language/text repair
The essay has not been attempted at all or shows clear signs of memorization or 0
plagiarism

(continued)
Table 2  (continued)

Task descriptor Description Points

Argument structure The essay is adequately structured formally or informally in conformity with the organ- 5
izational patterns of the target genre, i.e., argumentation. It includes an introduction
with a comprehensive thesis statement where the writer takes a stance. The body para-
graphs include relevant supporting details in both favor and against the writer’s stance.
The conclusion has writer’s personal point of view presented logically. All relevant
rhetorical patterns such as exemplification, cause and effect, comparison and contrast,
fact and figure are clearly and appropriately evident in the essay
The essay is structured formally or informally in conformity with the organizational pat- 4
terns of the target genre, i.e., argumentation. It includes an introduction with a thesis
statement where the writer takes a stance. The body paragraphs include supporting
details both in favor and against the writer’s stance with minor imperfections though.
The conclusion has writer’s personal point of view presented almost logically. Different
rhetorical patterns such as exemplification, cause and effect, comparison and contrast,
fact and figure are evident in the essay
The essay is structured formally or informally not much in conformity with the organi- 3
zational patterns of the target genre, i.e., argumentation. It includes an introduction
with a thesis statement where the writer fails to take a clear stance. The body para-
graphs include supporting details which is not much relevant to the topic. The conclu-
sion does not have writer’s personal point of view presented logically. A very limited
use of the different rhetorical patterns such as exemplification, cause and effect,
comparison and contrast, fact and figure is evident in the essay

(continued)
13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
291
Table 2  (continued)

Task descriptor Description Points

The essay is not structured formally or informally in conformity with the organizational 2
patterns of the target genre, i.e., argumentation. It does not include an introduction
292    

with thesis statement. The body paragraphs do not provide sufficient detail either in
favor of or against the topic. The essay concludes abruptly. There is no evidence of the
relevant use of different rhetorical patterns such as exemplification, cause and effect,
Z. Ahmad

comparison and contrast, fact and figure

The essay is not at all structured formally or informally in conformity with the organ- 1
izational patterns of the target genre, i.e., argumentation. It does not include any
introduction with a thesis statement where the writer takes a stance. The body consists
of one or two irrelevantly structured paragraphs. There is no formal conclusion as is the
absence of the relevant rhetorical functions
The essay has not been attempted at all or shows clear signs of memorization or 0
plagiarism
Textuality The essay clearly reads like a piece of academic discourse. The text has visible texture 5
created from both structural and non-structural resources. It is adequately cohesive,
coherent, semantically sensible, impersonal, and general-audience oriented
The essay reads like a piece of academic discourse. The text has texture created from 4
both structural and non-structural resources. It is almost cohesive, coherent, semanti-
cally sensible, and impersonal general-audience oriented
The essay somewhat reads like a piece of academic discourse. The text shows some traces 3
of texture created from both structural and non-structural resources. It is, to some
extent, cohesive, coherent, semantically sensible, and impersonal general-audience
oriented
The essay does not read like a piece of academic discourse. The text has almost no 2
texture created from both structural and non-structural resources. It is barely cohesive,
coherent, semantically sensible, and impersonal general-audience oriented

(continued)
Table 2  (continued)
Task descriptor Description Points
The essay does not at all read like a piece of academic discourse. The text has no texture 1
created from both structural and non-structural resources. It is not cohesive, coherent,
semantically sensible, and impersonal general-audience oriented
The essay has not been attempted at all or shows clear signs of memorization or plagiarism 0
Socio-cultural The text is produced in a certain socio-cultural context which is clearly evident in the 5
context & dis- argumentation/rhetorical patterns, lexical choice, and functional purpose used by an
course community EFL/ESL student writer. The text also adequately conforms to the academic conventions
specificity of the target genre and discourse community it is associated with
The text is produced in a certain socio-cultural context which is evident in the argumen- 4
tation/rhetorical patterns, lexical choice, and functional purpose used by an EFL/ESL
student writer. The text also conforms, with minor deviations though, to the academic
conventions of the target genre and discourse community it is associated with
The text shows some signs that it is produced in a certain socio-cultural context which is, to a 3
limited extent, evident in the argumentation/rhetorical patterns, lexical choice, and functional
purpose used by an EFL/ESL student writer. The text also conforms, to a limited extent, to the
academic conventions of the target genre and discourse community it is associated with
The text does not seem to have been produced in a certain socio-cultural context and 2
no clear evidence is discernible in the argumentation/rhetorical patterns, lexical choice,
and functional purpose used by an EFL/ESL student writer. The text also does not
appropriately conform to the academic conventions of the target genre and discourse
community it is associated with
The text is not at all produced in a certain socio-cultural context and no clear evidence 1
is discernible in the argumentation/rhetorical patterns, lexical choice, and functional
purpose used by an EFL/ESL student writer. The text also does not clearly conform to the
academic conventions of the target genre and discourse community it is associated with
The essay has not been attempted at all or shows clear signs of memorization or 0
plagiarism
13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
293

(continued)
Table 2  (continued)
Task descriptor Description Points
Lexico-grammar The text displays appropriate use of lexical items including collocations and other lexical 5
chunks as are appropriate to the topic, genre and writer’s purpose. It also contains an
294    

adequate variety of sentence structures which are grammatically and mechanically

accurate
The text displays an almost appropriate use of lexical items including collocations and 4
Z. Ahmad

other lexical chunks as are appropriate to the topic, genre and writer’s purpose. It also
contains a variety of sentence structures which are grammatically and mechanically
accurate
The text displays limited use of lexical items including collocations and other lexical 3
chunks as are appropriate to the topic, genre and writer’s purpose. It also contains lim-
ited variety of sentence structures which are grammatically and mechanically accurate
The text does not display an appropriate use of lexical items including collocations and 2
other lexical chunks as are appropriate to the topic, genre and writer’s purpose. It also
does not contain an adequate variety of sentence structures which are grammatically
and mechanically accurate
The text does not at all display appropriate use of lexical items including collocations 1
and other lexical chunks as are appropriate to the topic, genre and writer’s purpose. It
also does not contain any significant variety of sentence structures which are grammat-
ically and mechanically accurate
The essay has not been attempted at all or shows clear signs of memorization or 0
plagiarism
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
295

3 Conclusion
The framework designed for piloting assessment of the argumentative
essay is not conclusive as previous research has shown that no model of
assessment has so far yielded authentic results. The complexity lies in
the construct of writing, on the one hand, and the contemporary assess-
ment methods on the other. Between these two poles are a number of
intricate and conflicting variables such as the testing conditions, learn-
ing and teaching contexts, and heterogeneity of student writers.
Being tested, pedagogic differences, and conflicting interests of the
various stakeholders etc. that further aggravate the situation to the
extent that realization of an assessment system for academic writing that
gives an accurate measure of students’ writing ability remains an ideal.
Most ambitious research has focused on figuring out this dilemma with
limited success though. Following this, the proposed model/framework
should be assumed as a yet another attempt which may unfold a few
more insights into the mechanism of assessment for academic purposes.

References
Banerjee, J., Franceschina, F., & Smith, A. M. (2007). Documenting features
of written language production typical at different IELTS band score lev-
els. IELTS Research Reports, Vol 7. IELTS Australia, Canberra and British
Council, London.
Baume, D., & Baume, C. (1996). Running tutorials and seminars train-
ing materials for research students. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff
Development, Oxford Brookes.
Becker, A. (2011). Examining rubrics used to measure writing performance in
US intensive English programs. The CATESOL Journal, 22(1), 113–130.
Birrell, B. (2006). Implications of low English standards among overseas stu-
dents at Australian universities. People and Place, 14(4), 53–64.
Breland, H. M., Kubota, M. Y., & Bonner, M. W. (1999). The performance
assessment study in writing: Analysis of the SAT II: Writing subject test (College
Board Report No. 99-4). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
296    
Z. Ahmad

Bretag, T. (2007). The Emperor’s new clothes: Yes, there is a link between
English language competence and academic standards. People & Place,
15(1), 13–21.
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. London:
Bloomsbury.
Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4),
479–488.
Chala, P. A., & Chapetón, C. M. (2012). EFL argumentative essay writing as a
situated-social practice: A review of concepts. Folios, 36, 23–36.
Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. (2000). What to look for in ESL
admission tests: Cambridge certificate exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. System,
28, 523–539.
Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural
differences. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages:
Analysis of L2 text (pp. 57–72). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive
student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency.
Language Learning, 39, 81–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.
tb00592.x.
Cumming, A. (2001). The difficulty of standards, for example in second lan-
guage writing. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing
(pp. 209–229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cumming, A., & Mellow, J. D. (1996). An investigation into the validity
of written indicators of second language proficiency. In A. Cumming &
R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 72–93). Clevedon and
London: Multilingual Matters and Avon.
Educational Testing Service. (2008). Reliability and comparability of TOEFL®
iBT Scores. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional grammar. London:
Printer.
Elbow, P. (1996). Writing assessment in the 21st century: A utopian view. In
L. Bloom, D. Daiker, & E. White (Eds.), Composition in the twenty-first
century: Crisis and change (pp. 83–100). Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
297

Frase, L., Faletti, J., Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1999). Computer analysis of the
TOEFL test of written English (TOEFL Research Report 64). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied lin-
guistic perspective. New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC
Journal, 21, 66–78.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.
Jenkins, S., Jordan, M. K., & Weilland, P. O. (1993). The role of writing in
graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices.
English for Specific Purposes, 12, 51–67.
Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. E. (2008). Cultures, contexts, and world Englishes.
New York: Routledge.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education.
Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
Kaplan, R. (1984). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. In
S. McKay (Ed.), Composing in a second language (pp. 43–62). New York:
Harper & Row.
Kennedy, C., & Thorp, D. (2002). A corpus-based investigation of linguis-
tic responses to an IELTS academic writing task. Birmingham: University of
Birmingham.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second lan-
guage writing. London: Routledge.
Maimon, E. P., Peritz, J. H., & Yancey, K. B. (2007). A writer’s resource:
A handbook for writing and research (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Martin, J. R. (2001). Language, register and genre. In A. Burns & C. Coffin
(Eds.), Analysing English in a global context: A reader (pp. 149–166).
London: Routledge, Macquarie University, and The Open University.
Mayor, B., Hewings, A., North, S., Swann, J., & Coffin, C. (1999).
A Linguistic analysis of Chinese and Greek L1 scripts for IELTS Academic
Writing Task 2. In L. Taylor & P. Falvey (Eds.), IELTS collected papers:
Research in speaking and writing assessment—Studies in language testing
(Vol. 19, pp. 250–315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
298    
Z. Ahmad

Mickan, P., Slater, S., & Gibson, C. (2000). Study of response validity of the
IELTS Writing Subtest. In R. Tulloh (Ed.), IELTS research reports (Vol. 3,
pp. 29–48). Canberra: IELTS Australia.
Mohamed, A. H., & Omer, M. R. (2000). Texture and culture: Cohesion as
a marker of rhetorical organization in Arabic and English narrative texts.
RELC Journal, 31(2), 45–75.
Németh, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance:
The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213–240.
Nichols, S. N., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). The inevitable corruption of indicators
and educators through high-stakes testing. Tempe, AZ: College of Education.
Education Policy Studies Laboratory Report EPSL-0503-101-EPRU.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508483.pdf.
Nicol, D. (2009). Transforming assessment and feedback: Enhancing integration
and empowerment in the first year. The Quality Assurance Agency, Scotland.
Retrieved from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/publications/
transforming-assessment-and-feedback.pdf?sfvrsn=12.
Purdue University Online Writing Lab. (2007). Organizing your argu-
ment. Retrieved October 2007, from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
resource/588/03/.
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese
EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 444–456.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social
context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rose, M. (1984). Writer’s block: The cognitive dimension. Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tankó, G., & Tamási, G. (2008). A comprehensive taxonomy of argumenta-
tive thesis statements: A preliminary pilot study. Working Papers in Language
Pedagogy, 2, 1–17.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Troyka, L. Q. (2004). Quick access: Reference for writers (2nd ed.). Toronto:
Pearson.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 13  Analyzing Argumentative Essay …    
299

Veerapan, V., & Sulaiman, T. (2012). Theory and practice in language studies.
Academy Publisher, 2(1), 138–143.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2006). Investing in assessment: Designing tests to promote
positive washback. In P. Matsuda, C. Ortmeier-Hooper, & X. You (Eds.),
Politics of second language writing: In search of the promised land (pp. 222–
244). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of aca-
demic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 29–48.