Argumentation Across the Curriculum

Written Communication Apr 2011

Christopher R. Wolfe Miami University

Abstract

This study explores how different kinds of arguments are situated in academic contexts and provides an analysis of undergraduate writing assignments. Assignments were collected from the schools of business, education, engineering, fine arts, and interdisciplinary studies as well as the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences in the College of Arts and Science. A total of 265 undergraduate writing assignments from 71 courses were analyzed. Assignments were reliably categorized into these major categories of argumentative writing: explicitly thesis-driven assignments, text analysis, empirical arguments, decision-based arguments, proposals, short answer arguments, and compound arguments. A majority of writing assignments (59%) required argumentation. All engineering writing assignments required argumentation, as did 90% in fine arts, 80% of interdisciplinary assignments, 72% of social science assignments, 60% of education assignments, 53% in natural science, 47% in the humanities, and 46% in business. Argumentation is valued across the curriculum, yet different academic contexts require different forms of argumentation.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2011-04-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088311399236
Open Access: Closed
Topics: graduate education quantitative research multilingual writers argument

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (7)

Ihara et al. (2020)

Feature: Writing on the Periphery: The Writing Landscape of a Two-Year College

Teaching English in the Two-Year College
Zabihi et al. (2020)

Are Two Voices Better Than One? Comparing Aspects of Text Quality and Authorial…

Written Communication
Yoon et al. (2020)

Quantifying Disciplinary Voices: An Automated Approach to Interactional Metadis…

Written Communication
Wolfe et al. (2018)

Most Any Reason Is Better Than None: Consequences of Implausible Reasons and Wa…

Written Communication
Imbrenda (2018)

“No Facts Equals Unconvincing”: Fact and Opinion as Conceptual Tools in High Sc…

Written Communication

Show all 7 →

Kuhn et al. (2016)

Tracing the Development of Argumentive Writing in a Discourse-Rich Context

Written Communication
Wolfe (2012)

Individual Differences in the “Myside Bias” in Reasoning and Written Argumentation

Written Communication

Cites in this index (4)

Wolfe et al. (2009)

Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation

Written Communication
Wilder (2005)

“The Rhetoric of Literary Criticism” Revisited

Written Communication
STOCKTON (1995)

Writing in History

Written Communication
FAHNESTOCK et al. (1988)

The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument

Written Communication

Also cites 23 works outside this index ↓

10.1080/00221546.2009.11779016

↗
10.1080/01638530701739207

↗
10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0

↗
10.17011/ht/urn.20105241909

↗
10.1080/09500690801992870

↗
10.1007/s10648-007-9056-1

↗
10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

↗
10.1002/sce.20012

↗
10.1177/0170840607079536

↗
10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F

↗
10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.006

↗
10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366

↗
10.1177/1750481308091907

↗
10.1109/32.142872

↗
Regli, W.C., Hu, X., Atwood, M. & Sun, W. ( 2000). Engineering with Computers, 16, 209-235.

↗
10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001

↗
10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3

↗
10.1023/A:1015100631027

↗
10.1007/s10503-005-4419-6

↗
10.1007/BF00710663

↗
10.1016/S0883-0355(97)89733-9

↗
10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301

↗
10.1080/13546780701527674

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 73 View in citation network →