Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241 www.elsevier.

com/locate/jeap

Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment

Nahla Nola Bacha*
Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics/TESOL, Humanities Department, Lebanese American University, P.O. Box 36, Byblos Campus, Lebanon

Abstract An educational challenge that many university EFL students face is the production of written academic arguments as part of their required essays. Although the importance of argumentative writing in education is uncontested, and research shows that EFL students nd difculties in producing such texts, it is not adequately dealt with for the L1 Arabic writer. In this paper, an explicit instructional approach in teaching the academic argument in required essays in an advanced EAP course is described. The approach is based on the thesis-support element of argumentation and organizational plans operationalized through a teaching/learning cycle. The instruction of the academic argument in the essay is scaffolded through ve steps of the cycle: building the context, modeling and deconstructing texts, constructing texts jointly, constructing texts independently and linking related texts. Qualitative analysis of a few student sample essays indicated improved argumentative structure and transfer of acquired argumentative writing skills to new topics. Although the improvements can not be generalized, it is considered a successful attempt in providing needed explicit instruction for L1 Arabic students in an EFL environment and which also could be used with students in any EFL context. Reections and developments for future improvement of the instructional approach are made. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: University EFL writing; EAP writing; EFL writing instruction; Academic argument; Argumentative instruction; Lebanon

1. Introduction In many EFL contexts, students have difculty producing academic arguments in their required essays. Some research claims that a main contributing factor for this difculty is the different rhetorical systems between students L1 and the target language and which causes negative transfer (Connor, 1987; Connor & Kaplan, 1987; Kaplan, 1966). Recently, research has shown that despite this cultural/rhetorical parameter, with relevant instruction, EFL students can overcome these difculties (Connor 2001; Grabe & Kaplan, 1989, 1996; Kaplan, 1987, 2001). Teachers in EFL contexts worldwide continue the search for appropriate teaching/learning methodologies in attempts to cater for any relevant lack of appropriate material and suitable required course textbooks in attempts to develop the EFL students writing. In the search for instructional materials and methodology in teaching the academic argument, this paper proposes a teaching/learning approach through course required essays for L1 Arabic speakers of English at university level, an under-researched area.

* Tel./fax: 961 9 547254. E-mail address: nbacha@lau.edu.lb 1475-1585/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.05.001

230

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

2. Review of related literature Luis (2005) comparative study of American and Chinese rhetorical structures tells us that the main difference between instruction of the argumentative rhetorical structure is that in the American group the opposition is anticipated, while in the Chinese group analogies are highlighted. He gives a very detailed historical view of how this is tied to the traditional rhetorical written patterns of the Chinese and recommends that consideration of the languages rhetorical system should be accounted for in any instructional approach. With a similar objective of improving EFL students academic arguments, Yehs (1998) study carried out on 116 non-native middle school students in the US indicated that a combination of explicit instruction with a bridge and a pyramid heuristic (guide) gave signicant gains in the experimental students writing and transferability of their knowledge to different topics over the control group. Yeh (1998) claims that students bear a cost if they are not guided in writing argumentative essays. Although the study was carried out on pre-university students, it suggests that explicit instruction in textbooks is lacking for the foreign learner. Although there is agreement that the academic argument basically includes a writers opinion (or claim) and support (evidence), the argumentative macro-structure, has been described in a variety of ways (Yeh, 1998). Research indicates differences between the rhetorical structures in English and other languages such as Japanese and Arabic (Hirose, 2003; Liebman, 1992) which impacts classroom instruction. Wood (2001) states that argumentation involves a claim (the arguers position on a controversial issue) supported by reasons and evidence to make it convincing to an audience. Nine forms of argument are listed, among which debate and academic inquiry are included, each of which have different organizational structures. Among L1 Arabic speaking students, Western-style argumentation, written in English, is particularly challenging (Al-Abed Al Haq & Ahmed, 1994; Kamel, 2000; Swales, 1984). The claim in L1 Arabic argumentative texts is usually towards the end of the text, if at all given, and often there is no refutation of counter arguments which makes the texts more descriptive and anecdotal (Al-Abed Al Haq & Ahmed, 1994; Al Jubouri, 1995; El-Seidi 2000, Hamdan, 1988; Swales 1984). A further rhetorical feature of Arabic written texts is shown in Kaplans (1966) doodles, the digression of ideas which often times are not fully developed and/or supported. Given this, Kamel (2000) states that it is thus difcult for L1 Arabic speakers to grasp the argumentative organization in the target language and, similar to other researchers, states that .the comprehension of texts such as argumentation depends on training rather than language prociency (p. 224). Some research further claims that the L1 Arabic learner needs guidance based on argumentative principles which could then be adapted and/or transferred to students academic study and real life contexts (Connor, 1987; Connor & Lauer, 1985; El-Seidi, 2000; Kamel, 2000). In search of appropriate instruction, Yeh (1998) debates the usefulness of explicit over implicit teaching methods and nds that the former gives better results in terms of student writing development. Some further research in explicit instructional methods has indicated that high rated argumentative essays contain clearer author stands and theses, good refutation of counterarguments and use of lexical markers, all implying better organization of the academic argument in the essay than that of the low rated essays (Noble, 2006; Wu 2006). Further, a study by Horowitz (1986) indicated signicantly better performance by a group that was given reading and writing instruction with text-structure patterns than a group that received only reading instruction. Leitaos (2003) study on how children aged 8-12 and college students in their rst year are taught to write arguments through an argumentative sequence of introduction, viewpoint, supporting element, counterargument and reply (I,V,S,C, R) further showed how the students through explicit instruction could identify and incorporate counterarguments, found difcult and undervalued, into their texts. However, Yeh (1998) cautions that the use of such organization plans (often referred to as heuristics) may give students the impression that the argumentative organization is set; whereas, there is exibility in the organization depending upon the reader and the context. In fact, he goes on to tell us that there is no one set argumentative text type, and thus no one organization plan or type, and raises the concern as to .how students may be taught to be exible in adopting principles of argumentation to these differences (p. 53). He presents one view claiming that in teaching argumentative writing .the learning can be accelerated if novice writers are taught heuristics that provide guidance regarding the expectations of readers with respect to argumentative text, in addition to immersion in debate and exposure to a range of contexts and opportunities for peer feedback(Farr, 1993 in Yeh, 1998).

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

231

This view, he continues, focuses on the basic principles of argumentation in that the reader expects .claims should be supported. and that Students would need to adapt these principles for particular contexts and audiences but would be taught that these specic cases are unied by general principles (p. 54). Young (1987 in Yeh, 1998) notes the value of heuristics in argumentative instruction as . systematic plans for carrying out complex activities, offer a promising approach for guiding students to strengthen the support for their arguments .. .. a promising form of explicit instruction . which may foster mindful application of the thesis-support principle, increase transfer to different topics and contexts, and improve argument quality (p. 53). Yeh (1998) reviews the literature in the eld that focuses on the importance of the thesis-support argumentative model proposed initially by Toulmin (1958) and the need for writers to apply it in both their academic disciplines and the workplace. Though the research tells us that argumentation is a challenge for the EFL learner, very little has been done to demonstrate how argumentation, and particularly the argumentative essay, can be taught in Arabic speaking environments. 3. Aim It is the purpose of this paper to discuss a teaching/learning methodological approach that has been successful among Arabic speakers and to propose that this method could be used in EFL/EAP classrooms in many parts of the world. The academic argument is taught through the essay which is still found effective in teaching writing (e.g. Jonson, Thompson, Smagorinsky, & Fry, 2003). The ve paragraph essay with the introductory, body and concluding paragraphs, gives an adequate text type for the development and support of an issue such as the academic argument. The value of the teaching/learning approach proposed here lies in engaging students in the learning process (Cheng, 2006) and in contributing to needed instructional material for writing academic arguments in EFL environments. 4. Method One of the main learning outcomes of the advanced academic English course at the university in this study is for students to be able to argue on an issue using multiple sources in a timed essay. L1 Arabic students nd this difcult to do irrespective whether their L2 and/or L3 is French and/or English and/or Armenian, the three main foreign languages in Lebanon and which students know at least one of them (personal communication with students, teachers and analysis of written products from teaching experience). Investigating any signicant differences by the various linguistic and/or cultural factors is beyond the scope of this study. The instructional model has been used and rened over four consecutive semesters at an American afliated university in Lebanon. It draws upon three teaching/learning principles which are part of academic arguments. First, it is based on Toulmins (1958) thesis-support argumentative element for the overall organization of the academic argument in the required essay (used interchangeably with the argumentative essay hereafter). Basically, the Toulmins (1958) argumentative elements include three main parts: 1) a claim (the central proposition or opinion of the writer used interchangeably with thesis hereafter), 2) data (the evidence to support the claim, used interchangeably with evidence hereafter) and the 3) warrants (assumptions - beliefs and principles of the author). Yeh (1998) values Toulmins (1958) argumentative elements as they propose on a macro scale support for claims and responses to counterarguments and, as he puts it, simply a thesis-support type of organization. Second, the instructional approach is adapted from Reids (1988) three argumentative organizational plans A, B, C (along with the three different claims of fact, value and policy). Reids (1988) proposed argumentation organization plans, A, B, C, not only provide helpful guides for organizing the body paragraphs of the argumentative essay, but also exibility in offering students a choice of three ways to organize the academic argument. According to the organizational Plan A, the counterarguments are rst refuted and then the arguments and support are developed; organizational Plan B is just the reverse with the arguments being dealt with rst. Organizational Plan C deals rst with

232

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

refutation of a counterargument and then providing evidence for a stronger argument, the sequence being repeated for any further counterarguments. The choice of which plan to use is left to the students who decide on the plan that would most persuasively put forth their arguments. Third, the instructional approach is based on the ve steps of the teaching/learning cycle (scaffolding) of Feez (1998) in guiding students to write an argumentative essay, mindful all the while to keep exibility and transferability as part of the students learning process. This is given through the ve teaching/learning cycle steps of: 1) building the context, 2) modeling and deconstructing the text, 3) constructing the text jointly, 4) constructing the text independently, 5) linking related texts and understanding language in contexts (see also Hyland, 2008 for a review). Teacher guidance in this scaffolding approach decreases as students become more independent writers. However, it is important for students to learn the applicability and transferability of texts, the argumentative essay here, to other situations and contexts, especially to their academic courses (James, 2009; Johns, 2008; Yeh, 1998). This ve step instructional approach is detailed below integrating the rst two principles given above from Toulmin (1958) and Reid (1988) over a four week period during the Fall Semester at the time of the study. Feez model is supplemented with the administering of four timed essays over the course: two on the same topic, one given at the beginning and the other at the end of the course to note for any qualitative writing developments. The other two essays were administered at the end of the course, each on different topics in order to see whether students understood the principles of the academic argument in how they transfer these to new topics. Student sample essays were drawn upon for classroom instruction. 4.1. Instructional approach 4.1.1. Step 1 building the context Building the context entailed having students sit for the rst argumentative essay and examining differences among text types and how authors purpose and intended audience affects the way academic arguments may be organized. In the eighth week of the fteen week semester, the time allotted for introducing the required argumentative essay assignment, students wrote without any prior instruction an in-class timed argumentative essay in two hours (referred to as the rst essay) in which they supported their stand on the issue Justice Exists Only in the Mind (referred to as the Justice topic hereafter). This was given as a diagnostic essay and students informed that this was necessary in order to assess their ability of writing an academic argument in an essay for teaching/learning purposes. The topic of Justice was selected as students could relate it to the class readings, their own experiences and the political events that were occurring in Lebanon at the time. The diagnostic essay would be a good base line upon which any developments over the four week instructional week could be compared. Using intact classes to obtain data is valid in research such as this one (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991). Since results can not be generalized as an experimental/control research design would then be necessary, any writing developments will be explored in the later essays. The high and low rated diagnostic essays were identied using the departmental constructed analytic rubric for argumentative essays. This rubric had a rating scale according to what was expected in each paragraph (see organizational outlines below under 4.1.2) with a total of 15 points for the introductory paragraph, 75 points for the two-three body paragraphs and 10 points for the concluding paragraph. The total grade was based on language, evidence and argumentative organization, but the present study focuses on discussing any qualitative improvements in the latter. Teachers may develop their own rubric and rating scale with the objective of identifying the high, mid, low and unsuccessful essays. After the diagnostic essay was written and scored, students were informed of the importance of identifying the purpose and the readership in organizing the argumentative essay. Students were exposed to different text types such as projects, short term papers, essays and so forth from the various disciplines and the critique essay that they had just written in the rst half of the course. Over the rst of the four weeks allotted to the instruction of the argumentative essay, discussions focused on the reading selections in the course textbook (Behrens & Rosen, 2008) in examining text organization, the author(s) purpose, readership, argument(s), counterargument(s), and refutation of opposing argument(s). Students also identied whether the claim was one of fact, value or policy. 4.1.2. Step 2 modeling and deconstructing the text In the second week, modeling and deconstructing texts were introduced. This included analyzing argumentative texts from the course textbook and student sample essays from previous semesters for weaknesses and strengths according to Reids (1988) plans (see below). Any organizational differences were discussed and their effectiveness

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

233

debated. Refutation of counterarguments and counterevidence using relevant key cohesive features and lexical phrases were modeled. This gave the students the opportunity to discuss their ideas and at the same time to objectively take into account opposing views. Group and individual exercises were given in outlining sample student essays from previous semesters identifying effective/ineffective claims, arguments, counterarguments, method of refutation as well as key cohesive features. Variations of Reids (1988) three organizational plans were modeled (see below) to raise awareness of the exibility of the instructional approach. and its transferability to different topics. Plan A, for example, could be used with Plan C. In this organizational type, the rst body paragraph could refute a few counterarguments and the second and third paragraphs could focus on the refutation of two different counterarguments each in separate paragraphs according to Plan C. Other ways could be modeled. Intensive work was then done on the organizational parts of the argumentative essay adapted from Reids (1988) inclusion of the thesis, counterargument, and refutation. These were modeled and analyzed. For example, one structure of the argumentative thesis was modeled: Although . I agree/disagree..because .(rst reason) and (second but stronger reason).(Students were informed that only two arguments or reasons are required at this stage). Next, exercises were done in identifying and providing alternative key lexical phrases to introduce the different parts of the argument. Students, for instance, identied the key words that introduced the counterarguments such as Proponents of .. and Those that claim that..and so forth. Also were modeled the lexical phrases that introduce refutation; for example, This might be true, but. ,I agree to a certain extent that.;however, . (conceding to the truth), This argument, however, is not related to ... (showing irrelevance), and This argument is incorrect. (showing inaccuracy) (see Reid, 1988). Although not related to teaching the argumentative organization, alongside this, logical fallacies (or faulty reasoning in the evidence) were identied in the reading selections and sample essays written by previous students. Students learned how they could avoid these fallacies when supporting their claims. For example, one way to avoid

Argumentation Organizational Plans (adapted) (Reid, 1988) Introductory paragraph for Plans A, B, and C  Arouse interest through a question, an anecdote, startling statement, a quotation or a combination  Give Background to the Controversy  State Thesis Statement Body paragraph organization plan A Body Paragraph 1  One or two counterargument(s)/counterevidence/refutation Body Paragraphs 2 or 3  One to Two Argument(s) and evidence Concluding paragraph for Plans A, B, and C  Restate Thesis Statement  General Comments  Final Word Body paragraph organization - Plan B Body Paragraphs 2 or 3  Similar to Plan A with body paragraph 1 and body paragraph 2/3 reversed Body paragraph organization - Plan C Body Paragraph 1  Counterargument(s), counterevidence, refutation, argument(s), evidence Body Paragraphs 2 or 3  Counterargument(s), counterevidence, refutation, argument(s), evidence

234

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

generalizations would be to exclude words such as never, always, everyone and substitute with those that qualify statements such as rarely, sometimes, most people or most families. Exercises in logic using Toulmins model (1958) were practiced as illustrated by three student examples below, either in outline format or short paragraphs. Students in groups could work on similar exercises which would help them develop arguments in their required essays as well as help them argue logically on an issue. Example 1: (Student in this study) Claim: Position or point (e.g. We shouldnt elect Joe as chairperson). Reason(s): Support for claim.(e.g. because he is too bossy). Evidence: Evidence that Joe is bossy. (Students were asked to give some evidence) Warrant: Bossy people make bad chairpersons. Example 2: (Student) I disagree with you that Joe is bossy. In fact, Joe is very non-bossy. Hes a good listener whos willing to compromise, and he involves others in decisions. The example you cite for his being bossy wasnt typical. It was a one-time circumstance that doesnt represent his normal behavior. [The writer could then provide examples of Joes cooperative nature] (Ramage & Bean, 1998, p. 175). Example 3: (Student in this study) Claim of Fact: The New Registration System is More Effective Than the Old One

Pro 1. Easy 2. Quick 3. Developed

Con 1. Not practical 2. Loss of contact between students and advisors 3. Technical problems

Finally, the text on whether students are effective evaluators of lecturers (Kwan-Terry, 1988, pp. 60e61), organized according to Reids (1988) organizational Plan C, was outlined and charted as a class activity. This engaged dialogue and debate between the students and the teacher. It was interesting to see the positive attitudes from students on a topic not usually discussed in the L1 Arabic EFL classroom. Some of the students even re-outlined it as a problem-solution text which led to further debate on what the best organization would be. Sometimes, it was difcult to nd the right texts to use as samples for modeling and deconstruction exercises. Swales (2009) saves the day by recently advocating that teachers create their own written texts if they nd difculty in providing appropriate samples and recounts his own experience which teachers would nd valuable. 4.1.3. Step 3 constructing text jointly In the third and fourth weeks, students constructed a text jointly by working through their own argumentative essays by 1) brainstorming on topics, 2) identifying audience, purpose, supporting evidence, 3) giving ideas for and against their chosen topic in chart format, 4) forming an argumentative thesis, and 5) outlining the ideas according to one of Reids (1988) plans (some opted for a combination) and indicating how the counterargument could be refuted (see Reid, 1988 for sample outlines). One of the students outlines was used as a class activity (power point or on overhead projector) to write the essay. Most importantly, the students were shown how they could incorporate support into their essay through citing sources (e.g. X (2006) states that new and innovative ways of EFL management are needed these days). Different ways of in text citation were discussed and some examples were applied according to students disciplines. 4.1.4. Step 4 constructing texts independently In the fourth week and before the end of semester required essays were written, students worked on constructing their own argumentation essays. This involved doing preliminary work on the essay at home on a controversial issue of their choice, identifying arguments pro and con, the purpose, the audience, techniques of

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

235

support, the argumentative thesis, and an outline according to the plan they had chosen identifying the refutation technique(s) that would be used. After the teacher had checked this preliminary work, the students wrote the essay at home and uploaded it on www.turnitin.com for an originality report. A few assignments were discussed as a class activity using hard copies and/or essay over head projections. This was followed by group work and discussion of the effectiveness of the organization which often led to dialogue and debate on the content. After four weeks of instruction using the proposed argumentative model, the students wrote the second and third argumentative essays in class for two hours under test conditions similar to that of the rst essay. Since some research indicates (Kroll, 1990) that time between essays may inuence performance, the essays were given four days apart, the closest possible. The two essays were written in two separate sittings of two hours each on different topics that also relate to the students experiences. They were directed to argue for or against the newly instituted systems of 1) Grading and 2) Registration at the university. Any inuencing effects of different topics on student performance were not relevant in the study, the focus being on the principles of the argumentative essay (Reid, 1991) and the transferability of these principles to different topics. The fourth and last argumentative essay was a rewrite of the rst essay on the issue of Justice without students having reference to any of their previous three essays. In this way, students would avoid copying and rely on the skills they had learned. Since students were not informed at the beginning of the semester that they would rewrite this essay, there would also be little chance of memorization or other inuencing factors. Although one might expect rewrites to be an improvement over the rst product and thus higher scores on later essays are not surprising, the four weeks of instruction was not one based on drafting through a process approach, but focused on timed writing essays in one sitting under testing situations which may not give the opportunity for improvement. Also, there is research to show that sometimes students regress in their later writings (e.g. Kroll, 1990). 4.1.5. Step 5 linking related texts Once all four essays were done and scored, students were exposed to the differences between the argumentative and critique essays and a few of the expository essays that they were already familiar with such as cause/effect, and comparison/contrast. Students were also exposed to a few argumentative texts from their disciplinary textbooks and from the world wide web. However, it was felt that more time was needed to identify differences and similarities among texts, specically different ways that academic arguments could be organized especially on the world wide net and articles in academic journals in the various disciplines. The following section gives a qualitative analysis of the four academic arguments written as part of the required course essays and reections on future developments in the proposed instructional approach. 5. Analysis of essays Examining two high (75% and above) and two low rated (Below 65%) argumentative essays on the issue of Justice written before and after the four week instruction period indicates some qualitative development in the organization of the argumentative essay (italicized in the sample essays). In Students 1 high rated rst essay, the thesis and refutation of counterarguments are not effectively stated nor organized as indicated here below. There is an attempt to argue a point, but a stand on the issue has not been taken. Student 1 gives advantages and disadvantages only and does not take a stand until the conclusion. In Students 2 low rated rst essay, there is a great deal of redundancy, more description and no refutation. This conrms the rhetoric argument and the characteristics of L1 Arabic argumentative writing which is anecdotal and descriptive. Student 1 High rated rst essay:. Introduction Many problems occur in society between citizens that could be solved in many ways. However, the solutions might be sometimes unfair. Justice exists only in the mind. In the following, I would show when justice is not applied. ..................................... Body paragraph 1 On the one hand, you cannot apply justice in every situation or all time because in our relationships with other we tend to do what is suitable for the people that we love and care about even if we would be unfair with the others.

236

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

(Evidence given) Also in the republic affairs, some rules are put to accept the person who is qualied. We nd a subjective part for the admission where the same person have an interview. In this part justice play a role. Each one of the interviewer could have its own preferences and so between two persons who have the same degree, only one who can attract the interviewers under the pressure and the stress of the situation would be accepted. Body paragraph 2 On the other hand, justice is not applicable in our societies . because there is interference in every single decision of the employees. (Evidence given) It is a big problem challenging everyone especially adults that graduate from the university and dont nd a good job because they are not with a certain politician and they dont agree with his principles One can have an objection about the idea that justice is only a concept not an act in society stating that courts, judges and lawyers are present to provide justice and fairness to everyone. It is right that this is their job but it is an apparent job. We have to look deeply in the situation. . Concluding paragraph Justice is in the mind. It can not exist. (general comments given) Finally, unjustice could be found because of the authorities and the spontaneous decision that we take based on our emotions. We should think of some solutions to limit this mess and provide justice and fairness to everyone. Student 2 Low rated rst essay Introduction All as human beings are born equally in this world, so we have the full rightness and freedom to live peacefully. All of us are the same regarding the race the social, cultural, traditional and educational life. Body paragraph 1 Justice is the right for every person to have. So, from this point of view, there are many situations that man face in fairly and unfairly ways. For respect to me Justice exists only in the mind is an applicable statement because life is moving unfairly . so this is just said by all the people and especially politicians, and no one is understanding the essence of justice. (Evidence given) For respect to me Justice exists only in the mind is an applicable statement because life is moving unfairly .. All these factors are increasing day by day, and on one is capbable for solving our problems. Concluding paragraph Finally, I agree with this statement that Justice exists only the mind, since justice is stuck in mind without being used The rewrite essays below on the issue of Justice, written by the same students 1 and 2, show a clearer organizational structure over the rst written essays. Specically, the high rated essay indicates clearer the three parts of the introductory paragraph and the thesis a stand on the issue with refutation of counterarguments in the body paragraphs. Although these features are not so explicit in the rewrite of the low rated second essay, some attempt has been made. There is also improvement in phrasing the thesis statement, organizing the argument(s)/counterargument(s) in separate paragraphs and refutation including lexical features to introduce them. Attempts are made to avoid generalization through the use of qualiers such as trying, better, many, as we see it, some people. There is also less redundancy and more coherence. Student 1e Rewrite Essay Organization Plan B Introduction [Arousing Interest] Is there any thing called justice? Where could it be applied? Does justice bring you happiness? Is justice a solution to all kinds of troubles? Many questions could be targeted toward a major theme in society which is justice. [Denition of justice and Background] In general, justice is the act of taking a fair and correct decision toward a conict between two persons or giving a person what he deserves. The issue of justice had been analyzed a lot in the past. Starting with . laws in history till nowadays, many principles and laws are set to provide fairness to people. However, the application of this fairness is making a controversial issue. While some argue that justice exists only in mind, others assert that justice is applicable.

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

237

[Thesis] Although courts job is to provide justice, I believe that justice is a principle that exists in mind and not applicable on the ground of life because the favor of politicians interfere with the juries decision and it is hard to control all people in society. Body Paragraphs [Counterargument: Courts provide justice] D Refutation Some proponents of justice argue that courts are set to provide fairness between citizens. They claim that whoever feels that he has not taken his own rights from someone or from the government he can stand in front of the juries in a court and ask for a review of his case. This is true, but this form of justice is only an images or a series of acts that dont lead always to a fair decision due to the necessity of a hard work from the lawyer to search for all the evidence and use them. However, evidences are not easy to nd and used sometimes to take a wrong decision by the judge. (Refuted by True, but technique) [Argument 1 Political interference] Moreover, justice is not independent from the governmental system that puts a lot of pressure on the fair decision that are taken through justice. (Evidence given) This is seen due to the politicians favor to criminal because they would vote for them in the next elections. A politician can change the decision of capital punishment for a criminal and diverge it toward an innocent person. The interference of politicians in the judical system is so much widespread. [Argument 2 Difculty to control all people] In addition, justice exists only in the mind because a government cannot control every single citizen and watch his acts or behavior. (Evidence given) At all time, a person can commit some wrong and unfair acts toward another one without being noticed. Those minor acts are often not detected and their consequences are always unfair on the person related to them. They say that it is prohibited to park your car on the road near the lower gate of university. So you have to come early to park your car in the parking which is far and you have to walk for 3 minutes to arrive at university. You obey those regulations. However when you leave the lower gate in the afternoon, you nd there some cars parking. Is it fair? Regulations are put but not applied in so many eld. Concluding paragraph [Restatement of proposition: counterargument 2 arguments] Final Statement In conclusion, despite the presence of courts to provide justice, it is not applicable due to politicians favors and wrong application of regulations. But a society could not be perfect even when justice is applied. There would always be some troubles. Student 2e Rewrite Essay Organization Plan B Introduction [Background] Every human being has his/her own rights and liberties to practice among his/her social life. So, there are many obstacles and difculties that a person can face in his life. So, justice exists as the best solution for equality among the whole universe. [Thesis] Moreover, every one should obey the rules and regulations for the government in order to live peacefully in this life. Body paragraph 1 [Topic sentence e Counterargument 1 evidence] Regarding justice exists only in mind refers to the equality among people, where everyone follows the rules and regulations of the country and especially in the western countries and the civilized ones. [Evidence] Moreover, the law is the same for all people regarding the race, the social levels, the political points of views. So each one must obey the laws otherwise he will be arrested in the jail. This will reduce differences between people the good behavior between them, they trust each others, so life is fair and wonderful. However there is no distinguish between social entries: like poor, regular and rich people, nor between political members like president and vice president. All of them are considered as the family of the nation. So every human sacrices in order to provide a fair-equalized society. Body paragraph 2 (Argument 1 evidence) On the other side of the coin, justice exists only in the mind is not well practiced in several countries . where there is no equality between people, where the criminal is like the innocent person. (Evidence given) Moreover, this is

238

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

clearly shown in the social levels of life and especially in politics where every one is following a certain political regime for a certain benets. In addition to that the strong has more rights than weak. Moreover, laws and regulations are not well practiced . and this led to unfair benecial life. .. At last, life is unfair and justice is not considered as a basic soul for liberty. Concluding paragraph [Restatement of Thesis] Finally, people from all universe should create a universal organizations for rights, liberties and justice among all countries, so that equilibrium will be established in many different ways and solutions. It is noticed in the third essay example (below) written by Student 1 (above) on the issue of Registration entitled by the student as Technology or Humanity? that the counterarguments (easy, quick and developed registration) and the arguments (loses contact between the student and the advisers) are clearly organized and written in the thesis. The student has clearly introduced the counterargument with some students agree. provided evidence (omitted here as it is not the focus of the study) and refuted it. In body paragraphs 2 and 3, the student has dealt with the two arguments giving evidence and concluded by restating the thesis statement. In applying the plans of Reid in a exible way, the student could adapt it as a tool for successful argumentation rather than as a rote procedure (Yeh 1998, p. 72). Student 1 Essay on Registration Technology or Humanity? Introduction (Thesis) Although it is an easy, quick and developed registration, it is not as good as the original system because it is not more effective and practical, and it loses contact between the student and the advisers. Body Paragraph 1 Some students agree with the online registration since it makes the registration in a few minutes and easier. [evidence] But it can lead sometimes to mistakes in choosing courses. [evidence is given] Body Paragraph 2 First, the original system, registering in the advisers ofce, is more effective than registering through the computer [evidence is given] Body Paragraph 3 Second, the registration system is not too valid these days. It should include the human elements more than the material elements. [evidence is given]. Concluding Paragraph To conclude, I am asking to change the registration system because it makes student and advisers somehow far and it is not that effective one.

6. Reections and future developments This paper has described an instructional approach to teach the academic argument in required essays used successfully with advanced L1 Arabic EFL classes. Some research shows that the teaching of texts (such as the academic argument) is questionable as the texts that are taught in the classroom often do not resemble those that students will use in the real world or in the disciplines (Bhatia, 2004; Paxton, 2007; Sheikholeslami & El-Taher Makhlouf, 2000). Another argument against teaching texts in the classroom is that student backgrounds and language prociency are sometimes not considered (Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007). Given these shortcomings, there is still something to be said in favor of guiding students in a writing task they nd difcult. Although other concerns such as language prociency and sufcient specic evidence need to be addressed in the instructional approach as illustrated in the student samples given here, the organizational improvements on the later essays lend support to the effectiveness of this approach. Furthermore, despite the fact that the instructional approach detailed in the present study is not new, but what Firkins, Forey, and Sengupta (2007) would call a marrying of approaches, its rigorous application is signicant in raising learners awareness and improving writing. Signicantly, it provided support to these students who have had traditional writing practices which focused more on the sentence

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

239

level than on whole texts. To have been given this help instead of expecting them to produce an academic argument in their required essays in two hour sittings is of value as many of the students reported at the end of the semester. In Ferris (2001) call to researchers for more appropriate writing approaches and techniques for the L2 learner, this instructional approach could be used in any EFL context. Few university teachers would deny the importance of teaching academic argumentation to students for success in their university studies and careers. Perpignan, Rubin, and Katznelson (2007) further note the academic arguments added value in raising students self awareness of individual skills and creativity, developing participation in teamwork, fostering critical thinking, and organizing thoughts. Connor, Gorman, and Vahapassis (1998) statement below is very well taken. The practice of argumentation in education . can clearly have an effect on society.. In school settings critical thinking is often assessed by asking students to identify an issue, consider different views, form and defend a viewpoint, and consider and respond to counterarguments. Thus critical thinking is often linked with argumentation and the writing of argumentative essays. The ability to write effective arguments inuences grades, academic success, and preparation for college and employment (pp. 156e157). Upon reection, the instructional approach used was helpful. However, a good addition would be the disciplinary taxonomy of macro-genres of Carter (2007 in Johns, 2008) which stresses varying types of written texts for different purposes and disciplines. One of the drawbacks in the present study is that there was insufcient engagement among students in sharing their writing and writing academic arguments in required disciplinary texts. More time than four weeks needs to be devoted to academic argument writing. Also, a few faculty members from other disciplines could be called upon to discuss issues related to the students discipline(s) after which the students would organize and write arguments agreeing and/or disagreeing with certain points that caused debate during the discussions. Perhaps exposure and practice of reports, shorter writings, op-ed pieces and the like would also bring the students closer to the real world. In addition, teachers written texts such as those by Hamp-Lyons and Heasley (2006) and others may help us come closer to our students needs. EFL students literacy in the disciplines constantly needs to be upgraded (Johns & Swales, 2002) especially academic argumentative writing tasks that cut across cultures (Liu, 2005). This is an educational challenge for the EFL student and an even greater one for the teacher on whom the responsibility lies. Acknowledgements The author wishes to acknowledge the support given to undergo this research by the University Research Council of the Lebanese American University and the reviewers who gave their time and insightful recommendations in nalizing the paper. Permission to reproduce student work was obtained. Student work is included here without any changes or editing. References
Al-Abed Al Haq, F., & Ahmed, A. (1994). Discourse problems in argumentative writing. World Englishes, 13(3), 307e323. Al Jubouri, A. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London: Cassell Publishers. Behrens, L., & Rosen, L. J. (2008). Writing and reading across the curriculum. New York: Longman and Pearson Publishers. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. New York: Continuum. Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specic Purposes, 25, 76e89. Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: cross cultural differences. In U. Connor, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 57e71). Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Connor, U. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric: New directions. paper presented at the second international conference on contrastive rhetoric: Linguistics, culture, and teaching. The American University in Cairo. Connor, U., Gorman, T., & Vahapassis, A. (1998). The argumentative/persuasive task. In A. C. Purves, T. P. Gorman, & R. E. Degenhart (Eds.), The IEA study of written composition 1: The international writing tasks and scoring scales (pp. 155e171). Oxford: Pergamon. Connor, U., & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). (1987). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: linguistic rhetorical approach. Text, 5(4), 309e326.

240

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

El-Seidi, M. (2000). Metadiscourse in English and Arabic argumentative writing: a cross-linguistic study of texts written by American and Egyptian university students. In I. Zeinab, S. Aydelott, & N. Kassabgy (Eds.), Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in Arabic and English theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 111e126). Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. AMES: Macquarie University. Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew, & M. .Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 298e314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Firkins, A., Forey, G., & Sengupta, S. (2007). Teaching writing to low prociency EFL students. ELT Journal, 61(4), 341e352. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1989). Writing in a second language, contrastive rhetoric. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen, Duane (Eds.), Richness in writing (pp. 263e283). London: Longman. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Addison Wesley. Hamdan, A.S. (1988). Coherence and cohesion in texts written in English by Jordanian university students. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Manchester University, England. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Heasley, B. (2006). Study writing: A course in written English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181e208. Horowitz, D. M. (1986). Essay examinations prompts and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specic Purposes, 5, 107e120. Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41(4), 543e562. James, M. A. (2009). Far transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course: Can the gap be bridged? 18, 69e84. Johns, A. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: an ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 237e252. Johns, A., & Swales, J. (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1 (1), 1e28. Jonson, T. S., Thompson, L., Smagorinsky, P., & Fry, P. G. (2003). Learning to teach the ve-pargaraph theme. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 136e176. Kamel, S. A. (2000). Categories of comprehension in argumentative discourse: a cross-linguistic study. In I. Zeinab, S. Aydelott, & N. Kassabgy (Eds.), Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in Arabic and English theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 193e235). Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1e21. Kaplan, R. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 9e21). Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Kaplan, R. (2001). Telepress conference. The second international conference on contrastive rhetoric: Linguistics, culture, and teaching. March: The American University in Cairo. 23-25. Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kwan-Terry, A. (Ed.). (1988). Interactive writing: An advanced course in writing skills. New York: Prentice Hall. Leitao, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20(3), 269e306. Liebman, J. D. (1992). Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 141e165. Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical education through instruction across cultures: a comparative analysis of select online instructional materials on argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), 1e18. Noble, W. J. (2006). An analysis of argument in novice academic writing in a second language. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney. Paxton, M. (2007). Tensions between textbook pedagogy and the literacy practices of the disciplinary community: a study of writing in rst year economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 109e125. Perpignan, H., Rubin, B., & Katznelson, H. (2007). By-products: the added value of academic writing instruction for higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 163e181. Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specic text: roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8e45. Ramage, J. D., & Bean, J. C. (1998). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Reid, J. M. (1988). The process of composition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Reid, J. M. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191e210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheikholeslami, C. M., & El-Taher Makhlouf, N. (2000). The impact of Arabic on ESL expository writing. In I. Zeinab, S. Aydelott, & N. Kassabgy (Eds.), Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in Arabic and English theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 127e146). Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Swales, J. M. (1984). A review of ESP in the Arab world 1977e1983: trends, developments and retrenchments. In J. Swales, & H. Mustafa (Eds.), English for specic purposes in the Arab world (pp. 9e21). Birmingham: Language Studies Unit, University of Aston. Swales, J. M. (2009). When there is no perfect text: approaches to the EAP practitioners dilemma. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 5e13. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wood, N. V. (2001). Perspectives on argument. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

N.N. Bacha / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010) 229e241

241

Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: investigating the strategy of problematization in students argumentation. RELC Journal, 37(3), 329e353. Yeh, S. S. (1998). Empowering education: teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49e83. Nahla Nola Bacha, Ph.D., a graduate of the University of Leicester, U.K., is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics/TESOL at the Lebanese American University, Lebanon where she has administered and taught in the ESL/EFL Program for over twenty years. She has presented at regional and international conferences and coordinated local and regional conferences. She has published in international refereed journals as well as coordinating and co-authoring the English textbooks for the new Secondary English Curriculum as part of the curricular reforms by the Ministry of Education National Center for Educational Research and Development in Lebanon. Her research interests are in EAP/EPP, Writing, Testing, discourse and corpus analysis.