theory of essay writing

Argumentative writing: theory, assessment, and instruction

Published: 09 May 2019
Volume 32 , pages 1345–1357, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

Ralph P. Ferretti 1 &
Steve Graham 2

23k Accesses

45 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Despite the early emergence of oral argumentation, written argumentation is slow to develop, insensitive to alternative perspectives, and generally of poor quality. These findings are unsettling because high quality argumentative writing is expected throughout the curriculum and needed in an increasingly competitive workplace that requires advanced communication skills. In this introduction, we provide background about the theoretical perspectives that inform the papers included in this special issue and highlight their contributions to the extant literature about argumentative writing.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The argumentative impulse originates with the anticipation of a real or imagined difference of opinion about a controversial issue (van Eemeren et al., 2014 ). Given people’s inherently self-interested tendencies, it is likely that the appearance of argumentation as a form of verbal communication was nearly coincident with the emergence of human speech itself. In any case, we know that the systematic study of argumentation, its purposes, and the discursive strategies used to argue have a long and venerable history in Western thought. In fact, many theoretical and metalinguistic concepts that we now use to understand the varieties of argumentation originate in antiquity (van Eemeren et al., 2014 ).

The fifth century BC is seminal in the development of argumentation and human rationality because we see for the first time the construction of a written meta - representational system designed to formalize principles of reasonable argumentation (Harris, 2009 ). Aristotle ( 1962 ) clearly had an inchoate understanding of the importance of meta-representation when he wrote “Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words”. The importance of this realization cannot be overstated because it suggests “…any full writing system is capable of rendering in visual form anything that is spoken (Olson, 2016 , p. 22),” and by implication, anything that can be mentally represented. Furthermore, and perhaps more important in this context, the creation of written meta-representational concepts and principles focusing on reasonable argumentation resulted in a sapient consciousness of the relevance, validity, and evidential basis for reasons (Olson, 2016 ). Simply put, writing enabled people to record, examine, and evaluate representations of reasoning as objects of reflection. The consequences of this discovery for the development of Western civilization are incalculable.

Naturalistic studies of argumentative discourse show that very young children engage in a variety of discursive tactics to influence other people (Bartsch, Wright, & Estes, 2009 ; Dunn, 1988 ; Dunn & Munn, 1985 ). Between 18 and 24 months, toddlers use sentences to argue with parents and siblings (Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990 ; Perlman & Ross, 2005 ), and at 36 months, they are able to produce negative and positive reasons to justify a decision (Stein & Bernas, 1999 ). Despite this precocity, children and adults are prone to my-side bias (Kuhn, 1991 ; Perkins, Farady, & Bushey, 1991 ) and are predisposed to use self-interested standards to evaluate their arguments and those of other people (Ferretti & Fan, 2016 ). The insensitivity to alternative perspectives and neglect of evaluative standards are also seen in students’ written arguments (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012 ). The NAEP report showed that only about 25% of students’ argumentative essays provide strong reasons and supporting examples, but they often fail to consider alternative perspectives. Evidence for my-side bias is widely found in the empirical literature (see Ferretti and Fan, 2016 ). These findings have sparked research about argumentative writing and given impetus to the design of interventions to improve the quality of students’ written arguments (Ferretti & Lewis, 2019 ).

Concern about students’ preparedness for the modern workplace has also heightened interest in their argumentative writing (Ferretti & De La Paz, 2011 ). Opportunities for blue-collar jobs are diminishing, and work increasingly depends upon the use of sophisticated technology and the acquisition of specialized reading and writing skills (Biancrosa & Snow, 2006 ; Graham & Perin, 2007 ). Furthermore, reading, writing, and content area learning have become inextricably interconnected throughout the curriculum (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008 ; 2012 ). As a result, students are expected to make and evaluate interpretative claims by using disciplinary strategies and evaluative standards when reading and writing (Ferretti & De La Paz, 2011 ). These expectations are reflected in the emphasis in Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010 ) on argumentative writing across the curriculum.

Current theories of argumentative writing (Ferretti & Fan, 2016 ) recognize its intrinsically social and dialogical nature, and that it involves the presentation of a constellation of propositions intended to achieve the interlocutors’ discursive goals (van Eemeren, 2018 ). There are, however, theoretically-motivated differences of perspective about the foci of argumentative writing research, the methods used to study written arguments, and the instructional strategies that can be implemented to improve written argumentation. In what follows, we provide some background about these matters for the purpose of contextualizing the contributions to this special issue.

Sociocultural perspective

Sociocultural theorists investigate how social mediation shapes meaning-making in historical and cultural context (Bazerman, 2016 ; Beach, Newell, & VanDerHeide, 2016 ; Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006 ; Newell, Beach, Smith, & VanDerHeide, 2011 ). In the sociocultural view, writing is a semiotic tool that supports communication and social relationships, is learned and practiced in social situations, and is used to accomplish inherently social goals (Bazerman, 2016 ; Graham, 2018 ; Newell, Bloome, Kim, & Goff, 2018 ). Given the focus on communication and social interaction, writing research in this tradition focuses on the situations within which people write and the influence of those situations on the writer’s participation is social activities. The writing context is never static (Bazerman, 2016 ). New texts become available, new communicative relationships develop, and new social practices emerge that influence human communication. Hence, the sociocultural tradition focuses on the interactions that take place among people over time and in different situations, and how writing creates shared meanings and representations that have consequences for the participants (Bazerman, 2016 ; Beach et al., 2016 ).

Sociocultural theorists also believe that writing development is influenced by participating in situations that afford opportunities to appropriate semiotic tools and social practices (Bazerman, 2016 ; Newell et al., 2011 ). Research in this tradition tends to use qualitative methods to reveal aspects of the context that affect and are affected by participation in social activity. Newell et al.’s ( 2018 ) study of a teacher’s shifting argumentative epistemologies during instructional interactions with her students illustrates how ethnographic methods can be used to capture the contextual and situational influences on her representation of argumentation, the development of her teaching practices, and the standards she used to evaluate her students’ argumentative writing.

In a similar vein, Monte-Sano and Allen ( 2018 ) used comparative case study methods to investigate the development of novice history teachers’ writing instruction after completing their pre-service teaching program. This study, which involved comparisons across multiple units of analysis, found that the types and sophistication of students’ written arguments depended on the kind of historical work they were assigned, the types of prompts to which they were asked to respond, and the degree to which their argumentative writing was supported by their teachers. Both studies relied on careful analysis of the contextual factors that influenced teachers’ instructional practices and students’ argumentative writing. Newell et al. ( 2018 ) and Monte-Sano and Allen ( 2018 ) also provide information about how the appropriation of disciplinary processes and standards in the English Language Arts and History influenced the development of teaching practices related to argumentative writing.

Cognitive perspective

The cognitive perspective (Graham, 2018 ; Hayes, 1996 ; Hayes & Flower, 1986 ; MacArthur & Graham, 2016 ) views argumentative writing as a problem-solving process that requires self-regulation to achieve the author’s rhetorical goals (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987 ; Graham & Harris, 1997 ). Problem solving is done in a problem space that results from the person’s internal representation of the task environment (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). The internal representation amounts to the problem solver’s understanding of the task environment, and the problem space is a network of paths for transforming this understanding into the goal. In the cognitive view, problem solving operates within an information processing system that is constrained by the writer’s available capacities and resources (Flower & Hayes, 1980 , 1981 ). Skilled writers manage these constraints by setting goals and then planning, writing, and revising their essays. Research shows that the failure to strategically allocate limited cognitive resources adversely impacts writing performance (Ferretti & Fan, 2016 ).

Writers draw on their knowledge of argumentative discourse, the topic, their interlocutor, and critical standards of evaluation to write arguments (Ferretti & De La Paz, 2011 ; Ferretti & Lewis, 2019 ). Expert writers possess fluent linguistic skills, genre and topic knowledge (McCutchen, 1986 ; 2011 ), and are skilled at setting goals to guide the writing process. In contrast, novices are less fluent, possess less genre and topic knowledge, and have difficulty strategically regulating the writing process (Graham, Harris, & McKeown, 2013 ; Harris, Graham, MacArthur, Reid, & Mason, 2011 ; McCutchen, 2011 ). In contrast to experts, novices write down topically relevant information that is used to generate related information (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987 ). Difficulties with self-regulation are seen in all aspects of the problem solving of unskilled writers (Graham et al., 2013 ).

Studies in the cognitive tradition often use experimental procedures and quantitative analyses to make inferences about the factors that influence argumentative writing. Ferretti and Lewis’s ( 2018 ) studied the effects of writing goals and knowledge of the persuasion genre on the quality of elementary and middle-school students’ argumentative writing. In addition, they examined students’ knowledge of persuasive discourse by analyzing the types of ideas they generated to help an imaginary student who was having difficulty writing. Their analyses showed that genre-specific writing goals and knowledge of persuasion predicted writing quality, and furthermore, that the ideas students generated to support an imaginary student revealed implicit knowledge about the intentions of other people that was not evidenced in their essays.

Graham et al. ( 2018 ) provided evidence about Alexander’s ( 1997 , 1998 ) model of domain learning, which posits that knowledge, motivation, and strategic behavior impact students’ writing development. In particular, Graham et al. measured whether individual differences in these characteristics predicted growth in the argumentative writing of fifth-grade students before and after writing instruction. There were some differences in the predictive value of different variables before and after instruction, but the most robust predictor of writing quality was topic knowledge. This finding is consistent with Ferretti and Lewis’s findings ( 2018 ), and provides further evidence for the influence of topic and genre knowledge on students’ argumentative writing (Gillespie, Olinghouse, & Graham, 2013 ; Olinghouse, & Graham, 2009 ; Olinghouse, Graham, & Gillespie, 2015 ).

Sociocultural and cognitive perspectives

Many of the papers that appear in this special issue draw on the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives to conceptualize, analyze, and interpret their research. Three intervention studies (Harris, Ray, Graham, & Houston, 2018 ; McKeown et al., 2018 ; Ray, Graham, & Liu, 2018 ) were inspired by the Self - Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model of writing development (Harris & Graham, 1985 , 2009 , 2016 ; Harris et al., 2011 ). The SRSD approach is founded on multiple lines of theoretical and empirical inquiry that address the cognitive, social, and motivational dimensions of writing (Harris & Graham, 2016 ). The cognitive components address the aforementioned limits on students’ knowledge and processing capacities by explicitly teaching writing strategies that enable them to plan, write, and revise their essays. The social components include the dialogic interactions that take place between teachers and students to scaffold the student’s self-regulated problem solving. The motivational aspects are seen in the use of instructional procedures that are intended to improve students’ self-efficacy, increase their expectations for success, and attribute their success to effort and other controllable aspects of their performance. Collectively, these three papers contribute additional evidence to a well-established literature about the benefits of SRSD writing instruction.

Harris et al. ( 2018 ) investigated the effects of SRSD instruction for close reading of informational text to support the persuasive writing of unskilled fourth- and fifth-grade writers. The instruction focused on how material from the informational text could be used to elaborate and support students’ persuasive essays. SRSD instruction was associated with improvements in genre elements, the complexity of students’ plans, and the holistic quality of their essays. These finding highlight the integration of reading and writing instruction that is increasingly important as students make progress through the curriculum (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010 ; Ferretti & De La Paz, 2011 ).

Ray et al. ( 2018 ) developed a SRSD strategy to teach struggling high school writers to analyze prompts used on the ACT examination, and then plan and write their argumentative essays. Writing is a gateway skill for college success (Applebee & Langer, 2006 ), and high quality writing on admission tests can positively impact a student’s future educational prospects. Ray and her colleagues found that SRSD instruction for the ACT examination resulted in better plans, a greater number of genre elements, and higher ACT essay scores. These findings provide encouragement to students who may have difficulty writing arguments but seek the many benefits of attending a college of their choosing.

SRSD instruction is demonstrably effective in improving writing outcomes for novice and more experienced writers (Harris & Graham, 2016 ; Harris et al., 2011 ; Lewis & Ferretti, 2011 ; Song & Ferretti, 2013 ) when it is delivered under conditions that ensure its procedural fidelity. Unfortunately, many classroom teachers are poorly prepared to deliver high quality writing instruction with fidelity (Graham, in press), so there is a relative dearth of information about the effects of teacher-led, classroom-based interventions on the quality of students’ argumentative writing. McKeown et al. ( 2018 ) addressed this issue by comparing the writing quality of students in urban schools whose teachers either did or did not receive professional development for SRSD writing instruction. The authors found that the quality of students’ argumentative essays was better if their teachers received SRSD professional development despite the fact that procedural fidelity was not always observed. The authors surmised that the effects on students’ writing quality may have been even stronger if the instruction had been delivered with greater fidelity.

Earlier we mentioned that people generally fail to apply critical standards when evaluating arguments. Studies of argumentative writing have almost exclusively focused on the goal of persuading a real or imagined audience (Ferretti & Lewis, 2018 ). Audience considerations reflect a rhetorical judgment (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992 ; Santos & Santos, 1999 ) because they are based a community’s prevailing standards of acceptability. However, audience considerations alone are insufficient because judgments about an argument’s reasonableness require the use of normative standards for evaluating the person’s argumentative strategies (Ferretti, Andrews-Weckerly, & Lewis, 2007 ; Ferretti & Fan, 2016 ). The reasonableness standard is tested when interlocutors answer critical questions about the argumentative strategies used by them (Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008 ).

Nussbaum et al. ( 2018 ) assessed whether dialogic interactions and instructional support for the use of critical questions affected college students’ argumentative writing. Students engaged in debates and wrote arguments about controversial issues associated with assigned reading materials. All students were provided with argumentation vee diagrams (AVD) that were used to represent the reasons for and against a position prior to and during class discussions. However, in contrast to the control condition, the AVDs of students in the experimental condition also included information about the critical questions that could be used to evaluate the argument from consequences strategy. The authors found that over time, students who used AVDs with critical questions generated more refutations than those in the control condition. Some transfer was also seen when students wrote without the critical questions. These findings contribute to a relatively meager literature about the benefits of supporting students’ use of critical questions to evaluate their written arguments (Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011 ; Song & Ferretti, 2013 ; Wissinger & De La Paz, 2016 ).

Linguistic, sociocultural, and cognitive perspectives

A number of studies reported in this special issue are informed by constructs and methods drawn from sociocultural, cognitive, and linguistic perspectives. Linguistic analyses can be helpful because texts are written in natural language by writers who have considerable discretion with respect to their goals, genre, word choice, and grammatical structures (Pirnay-Dummer, 2016). Skilled readers bring their knowledge of language, text structures, and world knowledge to bear on the interpretation of text (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011 ). However, even skilled readers can draw different interpretations about the simplest of texts. For this reason, considerable effort has been invested in conducting detailed analyses of linguistic features that are associated with high quality texts (McNamara, Crossley, & McCarthy, 2010 ).

MacArthur, Jennings, and Philippatkos ( 2018 ) analyzed the argumentative essays of basic college writers to determine the linguistic features that predicted their writing development. A corpus of argumentative essays was drawn from an earlier study focusing on the effects of strategy instruction on writing quality. Coh-Metrix, a natural language processing (NLP) tool (McNamara, Graesser, McCarthy, & Cai, 2014 ), was used to develop a model of linguistic constructs to predict writing quality before and after instruction, and also to analyze how those constructs changed in response to instruction. They found that essay length, referential cohesion, and lexical complexity were positively associated with writing quality. Furthermore, changes in writing in response to instruction were linked to improvements in referential cohesion and lexical complexity. These findings suggest that the text’s linguistic features are sensitive to instruction, and that NLP tools can be used to detect changes in those features. The latter finding is important because formative assessments using NLP-based scoring systems should be sensitive to changes in students’ writing in response to instruction (Chapelle, Cotos, & Lee, 2015 ).

Argumentative essays are difficult to score in vivo when the assessment goal is to guide timely instructional decisions and support student learning. Concerns about the time-sensitivity of writing assessments have led researchers to develop automated essay scoring (AES) systems (Shermis & Burstein, 2013 ). AES systems analyze observable components of text to identify approximations to intrinsic characteristics of writing (Shermis, Burstein, Higgins, & Zechner, 2010 ) These systems have traditionally been designed to yield a holistic score for on-demand, timed summative assessments that are correlated with human judgment (Deane, 2013 ). However, serious questions have been raised about the usefulness of AES systems in providing feedback for instructional purposes, as well as the construct validity of scores derived from these systems. Deane ( 2013 ) argues that these concerns may be mitigated if information derived from AES systems is augmented with data about the component reasoning skills related to writing collected from other tasks.

Deane et al. ( 2018 ) reported about the use of scenario-based assessments (SBAs) to measure the component skills that underlie written argumentation. SBAs provide students with a purpose for reading thematically related texts and engaging in tasks that are sequenced to assess increasingly complex reasoning skills. The sequence of SBAs is guided by an hypothesized learning progression (LP) framework that describes skills of increasing sophistication that are thought to contribute to proficiency in argumentative writing (Deane and Song, 2014 ). Deane and his colleagues measured students’ performance on SBAs that tapped the component skills of creating, evaluating, and summarizing arguments. In addition, linguistic features of students’ essays were measured with the AES system E - rater (Attali and Burstein, 2005 ). Measures of the linguistic features and component skills were used to predict the quality of students’ argumentative writing. Furthermore, the component skills were analyzed to see if they were aligned with the hypothesized LP. They found that linguistic features and the component skills contributed unique variance to the prediction of argumentative writing. Furthermore, the component skills were generally aligned with the hypothesized LP. These findings provide suggestive evidence for the hypothesized LP and for Deane’s ( 2013 ) conjecture about the value of measuring genre-related reasoning skills that influence students’ argumentative writing.

Allen, Likens, and McNamara ( 2018 ) observed that associations between linguistic features and writing quality can vary across a range of contextual factors, resulting in multiple linguistic profiles of high quality writing (Allen, Snow, & McNamara, 2016 ; Crossley, Roscoe, & McNamara, 2014 ). This finding has resulted in the hypothesis that skilled writing results from the flexible use of linguistic style rather than a fixed set of linguistic features (Allen et al., 2016 ). Allen and her colleagues examined this hypothesis by having high school students write and revise their argumentative essays in Writing Pal (W-PAL; Roscoe, Allen, Weston, Crossley, & McNamara, 2014 ; Roscoe & McNamara, 2013 ), a NLP-based intelligent tutoring system that can provide formative and summative feedback about writing, support practice for mechanics, and deliver strategy instruction. All students in this study received formative and summative feedback about their writing, and half of students also received feedback about spelling and grammar.

The authors were interested in whether feedback about spelling and grammar affected linguistic flexibility, and whether linguistic flexibility was related to writing quality. In addition, they sought information about the dimensions along which linguistic variation was observed. Statistical analyses showed that students’ essays varied along a number of linguistic dimensions across prompts and within drafts, and that variation in some of these dimensions was related to essay quality. However, feedback about writing mechanics did not influence the linguistic properties of their writing. These findings are consistent with the linguistic flexibility hypothesis and with Graham and Perin’s ( 2007 ) conclusion that writing quality is unaffected by spelling and grammar instruction.

We mentioned earlier that curricula increasingly emphasize the interdependence of reading and writing (Biancrosa & Snow, 2006 ; Graham & Perin, 2007 ). Students are expected to integrate and evaluate information from diverse sources when writing, identify arguments and evaluate specific claims in a text, and assess the adequacy of the evidence offered in support of those claims (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010 ). These are formidable tasks for native language (L1) speakers, and even more challenging for second language (L2) students. L2 students may have limited reading and writing proficiency, lack L2 fluency for academic communication, possess minimal background knowledge in L2, and have difficulty making inferences in L2, especially when those inferences rely of genre-specific cultural conventions (Grabe & Zhang, 2013 ). Confronted with these challenges, Cummins ( 2016 ) has argued that L2 students may draw on a shared pool of shared academic concepts and skills to support transfer across languages, that is, the linguistic interdependence hypothesis (LIH).

van Weijen, Rijlaarsdam, and Bergh ( 2018 ) tested the LIH by having Dutch speaking college students write essays in their native language and in English after reading sources that could be used as evidence for their argument. The authors sought information about the degree to which students’ essays were of comparable quality in L1 and L2, and whether their use of sources was similar across languages and predictive of essay quality. van Weijen and her colleagues found a relatively strong positive correlation between essay quality in L1 and L2. In addition, they found that students tended to rely more heavily on source material when writing in L2, but in general, writers tended to use common source features when writing in both languages. Students also tended to incorporate evidence for and against the proposition in L1 and L2. Finally, the same two features of source material predicted writing quality in L1 and L2, and that these relationships were not language dependent. In sum, these findings provide some support for the LIH, and suggest that students draw on a shared pool of concepts and skills when writing from source material in L1 and L2.

Final thoughts

The papers in this special issue highlight a range of theoretical perspectives and analytic methods that have been used to study argumentative writing and understand the conditions that influence its development. The sociocultural, cognitive, and linguistic perspectives have each made important contributions to our understanding of argumentative writing, but as the studies in this special issue show, unique synergies arise when scholarship is not constrained by theoretical, methodological, and analytic siloes.

Alexander, P. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivational achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Google Scholar

Alexander, P. (1998). The nature of disciplinary and domain learning: The knowledge, interest, and strategic dimensions of learning from subject-matter text. In C. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 55–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Allen, L. K., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2018). Writing flexibility in argumentative essays: A multidimensional analysis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9921-y .

Allen, L. K., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The narrative waltz: The role of flexibility on writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 911–924.

Article Google Scholar

Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: what existing data tell us (p. 2006). Albany: Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany, State University of New York.

Aristotle (trans. 1962). On interpretation . The University of Adelaide Library eBooks @Adelaide.

Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2005). Automated essay scoring with E-rater v. 2.0. ETS research report series, 2004(2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Bartsch, K., Wright, J., & Estes, D. (2009). Young children’s persuasion in everyday conversation: Tactics and attunement to others’ mental states. Social Development, 23, 394–416.

Bazerman, C. (2016). What to sociocultural studies of writing tell us about learning to write? In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 11–23). NY: Guilford.

Beach, R., Newell, G. E., & VanDerHeide, J. (2016). A sociocultural perspective on writing development: Toward an agenda for classroom research on students’ use of social practices. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 88–101). NY: Guilford.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from the Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Chapelle, C. A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Validity arguments for diagnostic assessment using automated writing evaluation. Language Testing, 32, 385–405.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects . Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf .

Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What is successful writing? An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write high quality essays. Written Communication, 31, 181–214.

Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on cummins (1980), “The cross -lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue”. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 940–944.

Deane, P. (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18, 7–24.

Deane, P., & Song, Y. (2014). A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessments to measure and support the development of argumentative reading and writing skills. Spanish Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 99–108.

Deane, P., Song, Y., van Rijn, P., O’Reilly, T., Fowles, M., Bennett, R., et al. (2018). The case for scenario-based assessment of written argumentation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9852-7 .

Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Chapter Google Scholar

Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family member: Family conflict and the development of social understanding. Child Developmental, 56, 480–492.

Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (1st ed., pp. 208–221). New York: Guilford Press.

Ferretti, R. P., Andrews-Weckerly, S., & Lewis, W. E. (2007). Improving the argumentative writing of students with learning disabilities: Descriptive and normative considerations. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 267–285.

Ferretti, R. P., & De La Paz, S. (2011). On the comprehension and production of written texts: Instructional activities that support content-area literacy. In R. O’Connor & P. Vadasy (Eds.), Handbook of reading interventions (pp. 326–355). New York: Guilford Press.

Ferretti, R. P., & Fan, Y. (2016). Argumentative writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 301–315). New York: Guilford Press.

Ferretti, R. P., & Lewis, W. E. (2018). Knowledge of persuasion and writing goals predict the quality of children’s persuasive writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9918-6 .

Ferretti, R. P., & Lewis, W. E. (2019). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed., pp. 135–161). New York: Guilford Press.

Flower, L., & Hayes, R. H. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

Gillespie, A., Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2013). Fifth-grade students’ knowledge about writing process and writing genres. The Elementary School Journal, 113, 565–588.

Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4, 9–24.

Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford Press.

Graham, S. (2018). The writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53, 258–279.

Graham, S. (in press). Changing how writing is taught. In T. Pigott, Ryan, A., & C. Tocci (Eds). Review of research in education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it doesn’t develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 414–424.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 405–438). New York: Guilford Press.

Graham, S., Harris, K., Wijekumar, K., Lei, P., Barkel, A., Aitken, A., et al. (2018). The roles of writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive writing from source material. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9836-7 .

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools . NY: Carnegie Corporation.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning disabled students’ composition skills: Self-control strategy training. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 8, 27–36.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 113–135.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2016). Self—regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence—based practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 77–84.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Reid, R., & Mason, L. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning processes and children’s writing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 187–202). New York: Routledge.

Harris, K. R., Ray, A. B., Graham, S., & Houston, J. (2018). Answering the challenge: SRSD instruction for close reading of text to write to persuade with 4th and 5th grade students experiencing writing difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9910-1 .

Harris, R. (2009). Rationality in the literate mind . London: Routledge.

Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affecting writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.

Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1990). Development of children’s noncompliance strategies from toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 26, 398–408.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, W. E., & Ferretti, R. P. (2011). Topoi and literary interpretation: The effects of a critical reading and writing intervention on high school students’ analytic literary essays. Contemporay Educational Psychology, 36, 334–354.

MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (2016). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 24–40). NY: Guilford.

MacArthur, C. A., Jennings, A., & Philippakos, Z. A. (2018). Which linguistic features predict quality of argumentative writing for college basic writers, and how do those features change with instruction? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9853-6 .

McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.

McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of Writing Research, 3, 51–68.

McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27, 57–86.

McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKeown, D., FitzPatrick, E., Brown, M., Brindle, M., Owens, J., & Hendrick, R. (2018). Urban teachers’ implementation of SRSD for persuasive writing following practice-based professional development: positive effects mediated by compromised fidelit. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9864-3 .

Monte-Sano, C., & Allen, A. (2018). Historical argument writing: The role of interpretative work, argument type, and classroom instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9891-0 .

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470) . Institute for Education Sciences, U.S: Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Newell, G., Bloome, D., Kim, M.-Y., & Goff, B. (2018). Shifting epistemologies during instructional conversations about "good" argumentative writing in a high school English language arts classroom. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9905-y .

Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 273–304.

Nussbaum, E. M., Dove, I., Slife, N., Kardash, C. M., Turgut, R., & Vallett, D. B. (2018). Using critical questions to evaluate written and oral arguments in an undergraduate general education seminar: a quasi-experimental study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9848-3 .

Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument strategems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 443–488.

Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the writing knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 37–50.

Olinghouse, N. G., Graham, S., & Gillespie, A. (2015). The relationship of discourse and topic knowledge to fifth graders’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 391–406.

Olson, D. R. (2016). The mind on paper: Reading, consciousness and rationality . CAMBRIDE, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Perkins, D. N., Faraday, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perlman, M., & Ross, H. (2005). If-then contingencies in children’s sibling conflicts. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 42–66.

Ray, A. B., Graham, S., & Liu, X. (2018). Effects of SRSD college entrance essay exam instruction for high school students with disabilities or at-risk for writing difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9900-3 .

Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Weston, J. L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). The Writing Pal intelligent tutoring system: Usability testing and development. Computers and Composition, 34, 39–59.

Roscoe, R. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Writing pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1010–1025.

Santos, C. M. M., & Santos, S. L. (1999). Good argument, content and contextual dimensions. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 75–95). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18.

Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions . New York: Routledge.

Shermis, M. D., Burstein, J., Higgins, D., & Zechner, K. (2010). Automated Essay Scoring: Writing assessment and instruction. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 20–26). Oxford: Elsevier.

Song, Y., & Ferretti, R. P. (2013). Teaching critical questions about argumentation through the revising process: Effects of strategy instruction on college students’ argumentative essays. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 67–90.

Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.) & J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5 . Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam Press.

van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective . Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumementation theory . Heidelberg: Springer.

van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wissinger, D. R., & De La Paz, S. (2016). Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ written historical arguments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 43–59.

van Weijen, D., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2018). Source use and argumentation behavior in L1 and L2 writing: a within-writer comparison. Reading and Writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9842-9 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, 101 Willard Hall, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

Ralph P. Ferretti

Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871811, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1811, USA

Steve Graham

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph P. Ferretti .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ferretti, R.P., Graham, S. Argumentative writing: theory, assessment, and instruction. Read Writ 32 , 1345–1357 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x

Download citation

Published : 09 May 2019

Issue Date : 15 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Argumentative writing
Instruction
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
The four main types of essay | Quick guide with examples

The Four Main Types of Essay | Quick Guide with Examples

Published on September 4, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An essay is a focused piece of writing designed to inform or persuade. There are many different types of essay, but they are often defined in four categories: argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive essays.

Argumentative and expository essays are focused on conveying information and making clear points, while narrative and descriptive essays are about exercising creativity and writing in an interesting way. At university level, argumentative essays are the most common type.

Essay type	Skills tested	Example prompt
		Has the rise of the internet had a positive or negative impact on education?
		Explain how the invention of the printing press changed European society in the 15th century.
		Write about an experience where you learned something about yourself.
		Describe an object that has sentimental value for you.

In high school and college, you will also often have to write textual analysis essays, which test your skills in close reading and interpretation.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Argumentative essays, expository essays, narrative essays, descriptive essays, textual analysis essays, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of essays.

An argumentative essay presents an extended, evidence-based argument. It requires a strong thesis statement —a clearly defined stance on your topic. Your aim is to convince the reader of your thesis using evidence (such as quotations ) and analysis.

Argumentative essays test your ability to research and present your own position on a topic. This is the most common type of essay at college level—most papers you write will involve some kind of argumentation.

The essay is divided into an introduction, body, and conclusion:

The introduction provides your topic and thesis statement
The body presents your evidence and arguments
The conclusion summarizes your argument and emphasizes its importance

The example below is a paragraph from the body of an argumentative essay about the effects of the internet on education. Mouse over it to learn more.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

An expository essay provides a clear, focused explanation of a topic. It doesn’t require an original argument, just a balanced and well-organized view of the topic.

Expository essays test your familiarity with a topic and your ability to organize and convey information. They are commonly assigned at high school or in exam questions at college level.

The introduction of an expository essay states your topic and provides some general background, the body presents the details, and the conclusion summarizes the information presented.

A typical body paragraph from an expository essay about the invention of the printing press is shown below. Mouse over it to learn more.

The invention of the printing press in 1440 changed this situation dramatically. Johannes Gutenberg, who had worked as a goldsmith, used his knowledge of metals in the design of the press. He made his type from an alloy of lead, tin, and antimony, whose durability allowed for the reliable production of high-quality books. This new technology allowed texts to be reproduced and disseminated on a much larger scale than was previously possible. The Gutenberg Bible appeared in the 1450s, and a large number of printing presses sprang up across the continent in the following decades. Gutenberg’s invention rapidly transformed cultural production in Europe; among other things, it would lead to the Protestant Reformation.

A narrative essay is one that tells a story. This is usually a story about a personal experience you had, but it may also be an imaginative exploration of something you have not experienced.

Narrative essays test your ability to build up a narrative in an engaging, well-structured way. They are much more personal and creative than other kinds of academic writing . Writing a personal statement for an application requires the same skills as a narrative essay.

A narrative essay isn’t strictly divided into introduction, body, and conclusion, but it should still begin by setting up the narrative and finish by expressing the point of the story—what you learned from your experience, or why it made an impression on you.

Mouse over the example below, a short narrative essay responding to the prompt “Write about an experience where you learned something about yourself,” to explore its structure.

Since elementary school, I have always favored subjects like science and math over the humanities. My instinct was always to think of these subjects as more solid and serious than classes like English. If there was no right answer, I thought, why bother? But recently I had an experience that taught me my academic interests are more flexible than I had thought: I took my first philosophy class.

Before I entered the classroom, I was skeptical. I waited outside with the other students and wondered what exactly philosophy would involve—I really had no idea. I imagined something pretty abstract: long, stilted conversations pondering the meaning of life. But what I got was something quite different.

A young man in jeans, Mr. Jones—“but you can call me Rob”—was far from the white-haired, buttoned-up old man I had half-expected. And rather than pulling us into pedantic arguments about obscure philosophical points, Rob engaged us on our level. To talk free will, we looked at our own choices. To talk ethics, we looked at dilemmas we had faced ourselves. By the end of class, I’d discovered that questions with no right answer can turn out to be the most interesting ones.

The experience has taught me to look at things a little more “philosophically”—and not just because it was a philosophy class! I learned that if I let go of my preconceptions, I can actually get a lot out of subjects I was previously dismissive of. The class taught me—in more ways than one—to look at things with an open mind.

A descriptive essay provides a detailed sensory description of something. Like narrative essays, they allow you to be more creative than most academic writing, but they are more tightly focused than narrative essays. You might describe a specific place or object, rather than telling a whole story.

Descriptive essays test your ability to use language creatively, making striking word choices to convey a memorable picture of what you’re describing.

A descriptive essay can be quite loosely structured, though it should usually begin by introducing the object of your description and end by drawing an overall picture of it. The important thing is to use careful word choices and figurative language to create an original description of your object.

Mouse over the example below, a response to the prompt “Describe a place you love to spend time in,” to learn more about descriptive essays.

On Sunday afternoons I like to spend my time in the garden behind my house. The garden is narrow but long, a corridor of green extending from the back of the house, and I sit on a lawn chair at the far end to read and relax. I am in my small peaceful paradise: the shade of the tree, the feel of the grass on my feet, the gentle activity of the fish in the pond beside me.

My cat crosses the garden nimbly and leaps onto the fence to survey it from above. From his perch he can watch over his little kingdom and keep an eye on the neighbours. He does this until the barking of next door’s dog scares him from his post and he bolts for the cat flap to govern from the safety of the kitchen.

With that, I am left alone with the fish, whose whole world is the pond by my feet. The fish explore the pond every day as if for the first time, prodding and inspecting every stone. I sometimes feel the same about sitting here in the garden; I know the place better than anyone, but whenever I return I still feel compelled to pay attention to all its details and novelties—a new bird perched in the tree, the growth of the grass, and the movement of the insects it shelters…

Sitting out in the garden, I feel serene. I feel at home. And yet I always feel there is more to discover. The bounds of my garden may be small, but there is a whole world contained within it, and it is one I will never get tired of inhabiting.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Though every essay type tests your writing skills, some essays also test your ability to read carefully and critically. In a textual analysis essay, you don’t just present information on a topic, but closely analyze a text to explain how it achieves certain effects.

Rhetorical analysis

A rhetorical analysis looks at a persuasive text (e.g. a speech, an essay, a political cartoon) in terms of the rhetorical devices it uses, and evaluates their effectiveness.

The goal is not to state whether you agree with the author’s argument but to look at how they have constructed it.

The introduction of a rhetorical analysis presents the text, some background information, and your thesis statement; the body comprises the analysis itself; and the conclusion wraps up your analysis of the text, emphasizing its relevance to broader concerns.

The example below is from a rhetorical analysis of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech . Mouse over it to learn more.

King’s speech is infused with prophetic language throughout. Even before the famous “dream” part of the speech, King’s language consistently strikes a prophetic tone. He refers to the Lincoln Memorial as a “hallowed spot” and speaks of rising “from the dark and desolate valley of segregation” to “make justice a reality for all of God’s children.” The assumption of this prophetic voice constitutes the text’s strongest ethical appeal; after linking himself with political figures like Lincoln and the Founding Fathers, King’s ethos adopts a distinctly religious tone, recalling Biblical prophets and preachers of change from across history. This adds significant force to his words; standing before an audience of hundreds of thousands, he states not just what the future should be, but what it will be: “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” This warning is almost apocalyptic in tone, though it concludes with the positive image of the “bright day of justice.” The power of King’s rhetoric thus stems not only from the pathos of his vision of a brighter future, but from the ethos of the prophetic voice he adopts in expressing this vision.

Literary analysis

A literary analysis essay presents a close reading of a work of literature—e.g. a poem or novel—to explore the choices made by the author and how they help to convey the text’s theme. It is not simply a book report or a review, but an in-depth interpretation of the text.

Literary analysis looks at things like setting, characters, themes, and figurative language. The goal is to closely analyze what the author conveys and how.

The introduction of a literary analysis essay presents the text and background, and provides your thesis statement; the body consists of close readings of the text with quotations and analysis in support of your argument; and the conclusion emphasizes what your approach tells us about the text.

Mouse over the example below, the introduction to a literary analysis essay on Frankenstein , to learn more.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is often read as a crude cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific advancement unrestrained by ethical considerations. In this reading, protagonist Victor Frankenstein is a stable representation of the callous ambition of modern science throughout the novel. This essay, however, argues that far from providing a stable image of the character, Shelley uses shifting narrative perspectives to portray Frankenstein in an increasingly negative light as the novel goes on. While he initially appears to be a naive but sympathetic idealist, after the creature’s narrative Frankenstein begins to resemble—even in his own telling—the thoughtlessly cruel figure the creature represents him as. This essay begins by exploring the positive portrayal of Frankenstein in the first volume, then moves on to the creature’s perception of him, and finally discusses the third volume’s narrative shift toward viewing Frankenstein as the creature views him.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Ad hominem fallacy
Post hoc fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
False cause fallacy
Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

Choosing Essay Topic
Write a College Essay
Write a Diversity Essay
College Essay Format & Structure
Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

(AI) Tools

Grammar Checker
Paraphrasing Tool
Text Summarizer
AI Detector
Plagiarism Checker
Citation Generator

At high school and in composition classes at university, you’ll often be told to write a specific type of essay , but you might also just be given prompts.

Look for keywords in these prompts that suggest a certain approach: The word “explain” suggests you should write an expository essay , while the word “describe” implies a descriptive essay . An argumentative essay might be prompted with the word “assess” or “argue.”

The vast majority of essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Almost all academic writing involves building up an argument, though other types of essay might be assigned in composition classes.

Essays can present arguments about all kinds of different topics. For example:

In a literary analysis essay, you might make an argument for a specific interpretation of a text
In a history essay, you might present an argument for the importance of a particular event
In a politics essay, you might argue for the validity of a certain political theory

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

The key difference is that a narrative essay is designed to tell a complete story, while a descriptive essay is meant to convey an intense description of a particular place, object, or concept.

Narrative and descriptive essays both allow you to write more personally and creatively than other kinds of essays , and similar writing skills can apply to both.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). The Four Main Types of Essay | Quick Guide with Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 31, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/essay-types/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write an argumentative essay | examples & tips, how to write an expository essay, how to write an essay outline | guidelines & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Writing theories and writing pedagogies

This paper explores the main approaches to understanding and teaching writing. Making a broad distinction between theories concerned with texts, with writers and with readers, I will show what each approach offers and neglects and what each means for teachers. The categorisation implies no rigid divisions, and, in fact the three approaches respond to, critique, and draw on each other in a variety of ways. I believe, however, this offers a useful way of comparing and evaluating the research each approach has produced and the pedagogic practices they have generated.

Related Papers

lail arrubiya

Ann Hewings

Sahal Alshammari

A writing teacher follows various methods of teaching. This article will expose the different approaches of teaching writing by highlighting its origins and how it has developed. It aims to enlighten writing teachers of the core methods they follow to teach writing. It limits its scope to four approaches; local knowledge, general knowledge, product, and process approaches of writing. This introduction of writing will give writing teachers the necessary experience to choose the appropriate method for teaching their students, as well as evaluating the current methods of teaching writing.

Teaching EFL Reading and Writing in Georgia

Natela Doghonadze

Dita Arintika

Azarbaijan, Shahid Madani University

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature Dynamics and Advances

Writing has an overarching significance in our lives. We experience this significance in our personal, professional and social activities. Much of who we are and who we wish to become in our social life, in the professional community we belong to and even in the privacy of our individual life is the outcome of what we write and how we write. We are often judged and evaluated by our control of it. The fact that we write for many reasons and purposes, that there are diverse contexts in which written texts are produced and consumed, and that those who wish to learn writing have diverse backgrounds and needs, all push the study of writing into wider frameworks of investigation. Teaching and Researching Writing should be seen as a response to the necessity of understanding these wider frameworks and meeting the needs of teachers and learners who belong to totally diverse contexts. As a brilliant reflection of many years of scholarly work of its writer, Ken Hyland, combined with insights from other prominent figures, the book primarily helps us gain glimpses of different social, cultural and institutional dimensions in which written communication operates. In light of these glimpses, the readers are expected to understand how much written communication has become an integral part of the complex webs of human's social, cultural and institutional life. Hyland's admirable applied linguistic perspective i links the social, cultural and institutional aspects of written communication to diverse research potentials and finally to multiple dimensions of the classroom practice of teaching and learning writing. This strong cycle of theory, research and practice makes up the skeleton of the book. The logic underlying this structure is a true reflection of an applied linguistic perspective. This perspective invites practitioners and teachers of writing to define and approach their problems with a theoretically-informed point of view. Following the logic outlined above, the author has organized the content in three major sections which link theory, research and practice together and one complementary section through which the opportunity for communication with the wider community is enhanced. The three chapters in Section I provide a rich conceptual overview of how writing can and should be defined by being linked to a number of key issues including text, writer, reader, context, literacy, expertise, technology, identity, dominance, culture, plagiarism and error. The chapters are expected to raise some of the key issues and questions currently occupying the field. The three chapters in Section II attempt to translate this conceptual overview to research potentials and possibilities. The author indicates how our theoretical understanding of social, cultural and institutional

lady sayegh

Jo-Ann Sipple

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

British Journal of Educational Studies

Anthony J CASCARDI

Cultural Arts Research and Development

Maryam Beiki

Educational Media International

Habbash UT ISR

English Review: Journal of English Education , Svetlana Suchkova , Gulnara Dudnikova

Eruditio-Educatio

István Jánk

The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development

Gert Rijlaarsdam

Anthony Pare

Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh

Issues in Applied Linguistics

Ali Shehadeh

Methods and Paradigms in Education Research

Noella Mackenzie

Inmaculada Ortega Angulo

Vicki S Towne

Educational Psychologist

Allan Collins

Edward M. White

Journal of NELTA

Jagadish Paudel

Learning to Write and Writing to Learn in an Additional Language (R.Manchon, ed)

Clark Dominic Alipasa

Armenian Folia Anglistika

zori barseghyan

Teresa Cremin

Abdessamad Saidi

PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning

lamyae lazaar

explaining and justifying the use of theory via a sentence skeleton

I started this blog in early July 2011. To begin with I put up a load of small writing/researching ‘tools’ that I often used in teaching doctoral research methods and academic writing. After three years of blogging I thought I might revisit some of these writing/researching tools during patter’s birthday month, and offer some variations on the original themes. The first of these is the sentence skeleton .

When you want to find out how experienced academics writers do their work, particularly if you are just learning the ropes of academic writing – it is often helpful to literally follow in their trail. Sentences skeletons are one way to do this.

Sentence skeletons can be used to see how academic rhetoric actually works. You literally strip away the flesh – the content of a piece of prose – to show the bones – the non-content related language which carries and supports the flesh. By filling in the blanks with your own content, you get to see how the text is structured. You can try out different academic ‘voices’ using different skeletons to see which feels comfortable. You then get to understand the various syntactical moves that are at work. You can see in the skeleton how academic writers actually establish their authority by making evaluative, comparative and synthesising statements.

The point of the sentence skeleton is not for you to cut and paste filled-in versions into your own work. Rather, it is for you to try out other people’s writing approach to see how it feels and goes. It is a way to understand the rhetorical conventions that are used in academic writing.

You can make your own sentence skeletons from the texts of academic writers that you admire, so that you can see what it is that they do. This way, you can work out how the text leads you to think it is ‘good’ academic writing. You can also use skeletons to look at writing that you think is poor; this helps you to see what some of the pitfalls in academic writing might be. It’s also often useful for supervisors to offer skeletons to doctoral writers who need a little help in getting their rhetorical stance sorted out – and who of us doesn’t need some help at some point or other?

My first sentence skeleton post offered four ways to present a short abstract of the thesis. It is here.

In this post I have produced a skeleton to show how a writer can justify and explain the use of a particular social theory. Even if you never have to write something as succinct as this skeleton about your theoretical choice, this is a helpful exercise to do, as it forces you to think about exactly why you have chosen this particular approach, and how you are actually using the theory in order to make a particular argument. The focus on the use – or the affordances – of a particular theory to a particular problem – is something that people sometimes struggle with.

Here I show the skeleton and then the original with the skeleton in bold. It’s often helpful to see the original so that you know the kind of flesh that is used in between the bones.

Skeleton: Explaining theoretical choice

In this (paper/book/chapter) I draw on the work of (name theorist) to make my argument that ……………………………………. (this your major argument in one or two points).

(Name of theorist)‘s emphasis on ….. is especially useful to my analysis as it allows me to think through ……. (name the major purpose to which the theory is put).

To this end, (name of theorist)’s conceptualisation of (name major aspect of theory) is generative for grasping how (name major application of the theory to the argument you are making).

It is here also that (name of theorist)’s attention to …… (another aspect of the theory) ….…. Is of value for informing (another piece of the argument for which the theory is essential).

Now here’s the original.

Theoretical perspective

In this book we draw on the work of Foucault to make our argument that psychopathology has become instrumental in schools and that schools play an instrumental role in expanding the new psychopathologies of children and young people. Foucault’s emphasis on truth, power and the constitution of the subject (Foucault 1983, 1997a, 2000) is especially useful to our analysis as it allows us to think through the ways in which psychopathology at school is produced and has productive effects. To this end Foucault’s (1982) conceptualisation of power as productive is generative for grasping how schools can indeed be instrumental in a field that, on first glance, appears to be the province of medical and health sciences (especially psychiatry, clinical psychology and psychopharmacology). It is here also that Foucault’s attention to dominant and subjugated knowledges is of value for informing how to understand how dominant knowledges of school disorders such as ADHD, direct attention from those practices that enable psychopathology to sit comfortably in contemporary schooling and educational environments.

(from Harwood, Valerie and Allan, Julie ( 2014) Psychopathology at school. Theorizing mental disorders in education. London: Routledge pp 10-11 )

About pat thomson

17 responses to explaining and justifying the use of theory via a sentence skeleton.

Genius! Thanks for sharing!

As usual, very helpful post indeed.

These skeletons, for me, not just make one going, also they help in reflecting back on the writing/thinking. Am I conveying the message(s) I intend to, is there a some unneeded repetitions, etc… Many thanks.

Dear Pat ~ your usefulness, re. the basic nuts and bolts of theory and practice, is becoming 100% necessary for keeping my head above the rising waters of research, writing and cobbling a thesis together. (How’s that for mixing metaphors!) So much of this PhD process is not so much the ‘what’ but the ‘how’ … Dare one suggest, during these months of absent aestivating academics, a short summer school for beleaguered doctoral researchers in search of enlightenment could go down rather well?! 😉

This is very nice. Thank you. I think that the skeleton sentence idea is also useful in other areas that even relatively senior academics do poorly, such as writing the key sentences in a grant application.

Thanks again

Pingback: A Minute in History: Week of July 5-July 11 | UCF History

Pingback: How I’m tackling my PhD discussion chapter | Emma's blog

Since hearing you speak at a conference a few months ago, I have been following your blog and reading your books. As I’m sitting in my study writing my thesis, it is so useful to dip into your book or check out your blog and there is always something valuable to think about or use in my writing. So thank you, you are really making a difference to the way I’m thinking and writing!

Ive been looking for some direction on how to skillfully infuse a theoretical framework into ones thesis. This was very helpful. Thanks.

Pat, I have learned vastly through reading your blogs and I am continuing to learn. There is always something to absorb from them. I have committed myself to learning something new about research everyday, and guess what, I am fulfilling my goal through your selfless tutoring. There is something new every time I visit your space. Thanks millions !!!!

Pingback: literature know-how – beware too much naming, not enough framing | patter

Pingback: Literature know-how – beware too much naming, not enough framing - World leading higher education information and services

Pingback: exorcise the inner “doctoral student” from your writing | patter

Pingback: writing skeletons | roehampton dance ma dissertation 2015

Pingback: Theory and concepts in PG research - Enhancing Postgraduate Environments

Pingback: explain your terms – writing a journal article | patter

Pingback: leave a good last impression – the thesis conclusion | patter

Pingback: your MC for this paper is… | patter

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

patter on facebook

SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET

Genre Theory: Critics and Argument

Genre theory, a fundamental concept in literary and media studies, analyzes how texts are classified into distinct categories.

Introduction

Table of Contents

Genre theory, or theory of genre, a fundamental concept in English Studies and literary theory, analyzes how texts are classified into distinct categories based on shared characteristics and conventions. To respond to question what is genre theory means to answer it what it provides. In fact, it provides a systematic framework to understand how genres function as communication tools, shaping audience expectations and responses. By identifying recurring patterns and structures within genres, scholars can explore the underlying cultural, social, and historical implications embedded within them. Furthermore, genre theory enables a nuanced examination of how creators draw on established conventions while also innovating, leading to the evolution of genres over time. Through its interdisciplinary approach, encompassing elements from linguistics, psychology, and sociology, genre theory serves as a valuable analytical lens for comprehending the role of genres in shaping both individual and collective cultural identities and practices.

Critics, Works and Arguments: Criticism Against Genre Theory

Relevance in the Digital Age: Some critics argue genre theory struggles to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of digital media and the proliferation of new media forms, which often defy traditional genre categorizations.
Overemphasis on Conventions: Certain scholars contend that genre theory places excessive emphasis on rigid conventions, potentially stifling creativity and innovation within artistic works.
Homogenization of Artistic Expression: Critics suggest that strict genre categorizations may lead to the homogenization of artistic expression, limiting the potential for cross-genre experimentation and boundary-breaking creations.
Inadequate Representation of Hybrid Genres: Genre theory has been challenged for its inability to effectively account for hybrid genres, which blend elements from multiple traditional genres, thus presenting difficulties in classifying such works accurately.
Cultural Relativity: Some argue that classification criteria of genre theory might be culturally biased, leading to a skewed understanding of genres from non-Western or marginalized cultural contexts.
Neglect of Individuality: Critics contend that its focus on shared characteristics overlooks the uniqueness and individuality of each work, potentially diminishing the significance of singular artistic accomplishments.
Limited Socio-Historical Context: Certain scholars point out that emphasis of this theory on formal features may overlook the rich socio-historical contexts that influence the emergence and development of genres over time.
Challenges in Defining Boundaries: Critics raise concerns about the difficulties in defining clear boundaries between genres, as some works may blur the lines between different categories, making definitive categorization problematic.
Dismissal of Genre Defying Works: Genre theory has been criticized for its tendency to dismiss or marginalize works that defy traditional genre classifications, as they may not neatly fit within established frameworks.

Works and Arguments Against Genre Theory:

Genre Trouble: Narrativism and the Art of Simulation by Marie-Laure Ryan: In this work, Ryan challenges the traditional understanding of genre and argues for a more dynamic and flexible approach that considers the narrative and ludic aspects of texts in shaping genres.
The Death of Genre by John Frow: Frow’s essay questions the relevance of genre theory in contemporary literary studies and suggests that genres are better understood as constantly evolving and contextual, rather than fixed and prescriptive categories.
Film Genre: From Iconography to Ideology by Barry Keith Grant: Grant offers a critical analysis of the limitations of genre theory in film studies and advocates for a more comprehensive examination of ideologies and cultural contexts in shaping film genres.

Examples of Genre Theory


	Applying genre theory to “The Waste Land” might limit its interpretation to traditional poetic genres, such as epic or modernist poetry. However, this approach overlooks the poem’s collage-like structure, blending various voices, languages, and historical references. By focusing solely on generic conventions, critics may fail to appreciate the poem’s exploration of fractured modernity and the disillusionment of the post-World War I era.
	Genre theory applied to “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” could categorize it as a comedy or absurdist play due to its humorous elements and existential themes. However, such a classification might neglect the play’s profound engagement with Shakespearean tragedy and its meta-theatrical commentary on the nature of reality and the role of supporting characters. An exclusive focus on generic conventions might obscure the play’s layered philosophical insights.
	When subjecting “Inception” to genre theory in film, some critics might classify it solely as a science fiction or action film, given its dream-based narrative and action-packed sequences. However, such a categorization might overlook its psychological depth and thematic exploration of memory, guilt, and the nature of reality. The film’s genre-blending nature, incorporating elements of thriller and heist genres, challenges traditional classifications and necessitates a more nuanced analysis.
	Applying genre theory to “Beloved” might classify it as historical fiction or magical realism due to its setting during the post-Civil War era and the presence of supernatural elements. However, a narrow focus on generic labels may fail to capture the novel’s profound exploration of slavery’s legacy, trauma, and the power of maternal love. Morrison’s innovative narrative style and blending of genres demand a broader perspective in its critical analysis.
	Genre theory applied to the stories in “The Things They Carried” may label them as war stories or literary fiction due to their Vietnam War backdrop and the depth of character development. However, a rigid classification might overshadow the stories’ metafictional aspects, where O’Brien blurs the lines between fact and fiction, challenging the nature of storytelling and the reliability of memory. Appreciating these nuances requires looking beyond conventional genre distinctions.
	Categorizing “The Waves” strictly as a novel or prose poetry might obscure its innovative structure and poetic prose style. Woolf’s use of six interconnected monologues blurs the boundaries between novelistic form and poetic expression. A genre theory approach that solely relies on traditional labels may overlook the profound exploration of consciousness, subjectivity, and the passage of time present in the text.

Keywords in Genre Theory

Some keywords associated with genre theory include:

Genre: It is a distinct category or type of literary work characterized by shared conventions, themes, and stylistic features.
Conventions: It means recurring elements and techniques commonly found within a particular genre, contributing to its recognizable identity.
Hybridity: It means the blending of elements from multiple genres, resulting in works that defy easy categorization and challenge traditional genre boundaries.
Evolution: It is the dynamic and changing nature of genres over time, influenced by cultural shifts, societal changes, and artistic innovations.
Expectations: It means assumptions and anticipations formed by readers or audiences based on the conventions and patterns associated with a specific genre.
Canon: It means the established and widely recognized set of influential works within a specific genre, contributing to the shaping of literary traditions.
Intertextuality: It means the interconnectedness between different texts, genres, or literary works, often involving references, allusions, or adaptations of prior works.
Audience Reception: It means how audiences respond to and interpret literary works based on their genre expectations and prior genre-related experiences.
Generic Transformation: It means the process through which genres evolve and adapt to new contexts, incorporating elements from other genres or modifying existing conventions.
Cultural Context: It means the broader societal, historical, and cultural factors that influence the emergence, development, and reception of genres in literature.

Secret Weapon of Essay Writing: Stasis Theory

As a writer, your job isn’t only to create a content that is easy to ready and understand while still written in a professional manner. You have to ensure accuracy and reliability of everything you enter in your paper and the only way to do so is to understand the topic. For this purpose, you have to research – a lot. Personally, I love researching because that’s a great opportunity to learn something and it has been scientifically proven that researching can, actually, improve your problem-solving skills. With that being said, one of the most common problems writers and students have is not knowing where to start researching or what to do about it, this is particularly confusing when working in teams. Luckily, stasis theory can solve your problems and making your research easier. Throughout this post, I will explain stasis theory and teach you how to use it.

What is stasis theory?

Stasis theory is defined as a rhetorical procedure to determine the point of issue in a debate. The theory was established in ancient times by Aristotle or Hermagoras and was widely used by philosophers and rhetoricians in great civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome. These rhetoricians defined a series of questions whose primary purpose was to examine legal cases.

These questions have to be used in a certain order because the outcome of each new question depends on the preceding one. The stasis theory is extremely beneficial for research, teamwork, and overall essay writing process.

When employing stasis theory, famous essay writers investigate and try to determine:

Conjecture (facts)
Meaning or nature of the issue (definition)
Seriousness of the issue (quality)
Plan of action (policy).

It is important to use this exact order of stasis theory. All these categories can be divided into subcategories thus making the overall process easier. Below, you can see how you can divide stases into different questions for more efficient teamwork, research and writing process.

Did something happen?
What caused the event?
Can it be changed? Etc.

Example: Climate change, does it exist? What caused it?

What is the nature of issue/problem?
What kind of the problem or issue it is?
What are different parts of this problem and how they relate?

Example: Can climate change be defined as global warming or something else?

Is it a good or bad thing?
How severe is the problem?
What are the consequences and who are the most affected people by this problem?
What happens if problem isn’t solved?
What happens if problem is solved successfully?

Example: Is climate change harmful? Who’s affected by it?

Should action be taken?
Who should be involved into problem-solving process?
What should be done regarding this problem?
What needs to happen to solve the problem?

As I’ve already mentioned, stasis theory is beneficial for essay writers and people who work in teams. Below, you can see how that works.

Example: Should we find a way to stop climate change?

Stasis theory is an excellent way for writers to get more info about a certain subject in order to finish their work successfully. For example, when working on special topics, you can conduct a research using stasis theory because it acts as a series of analytical questions which help you collect precise information.

When you’re answering stasis questions, you should get information from variety of sources such as: interviews, polls, literature reviews, databases, journals etc. Stasis theory doesn’t only help you enter accurate info into your work, it also helps you explore given issue before forming an argument or thesis. Let’s say you get a complicated essay topic where you have to demonstrate your own argument regarding a certain subject. Before you, actually, get to that point, using stasis theory questions to investigate the topic will help you form an opinion.

Furthermore, questions from stasis theory can help you identify gaps in knowledge. If you are unable to answer one or more questions it means you have to do more research.

Finished papers

Customer reviews

When working in a team, stasis theory helps multiple people find a common ground by generating and continuing a dialogue until consensus is reached.

Let’s take climate change for example and whether it’s solely caused by human mistreatment of the planet.

While some members of the team would agree that climate change was, indeed, caused by human error, others wouldn’t. Reaching stasis here would mean finding a common ground or something everyone would agree on.

Regardless of the opinion about human error or not, both groups would agree that climate change affects the entire planet (fact) , that it’s endangering various animal species (fact) , and they would also agree it’s a serious problem for all of us (quality) .

Therefore, team members would achieve stasis in two out of four categories. They would agree over fact and quality, but they’d disagree about definition (whether it’s the problem caused by humans or problem that occurred due to some other factors) and policy (what can be done about it).

Even though your opinions can differ, stasis theory is there to help to develop a dialogue and create a well-written work. Without stasis theory, team members would probably argue and nobody would be happy about the given work.

Remember, when working in teams, even if some members don’t agree about a certain aspect, it’s always important to use arguments and develop the concept that everyone will accept. For instance, you can include various reasons why humans are to blame for climate change as well as why they aren’t primary culprits. That way, it is up to reader to take his/her side.

Stasis theory can be considered as guideline for research. Using questions that define each category will help you get informed about a topic, form your opinion, and write a paper that will contain reliable information. The theory is also beneficial for teamwork because it creates common ground in situations when two or more people have different opinions. Just ask the questions in the order I listed them and write down (or save) everything you find. When it comes to stasis theory, it’s important to think logically and explore a problem thoroughly.

ESL Essay: Unboxing an ESL Essay with Topics and Examples
How to Write a Book Review
How to Create Expository Essay Outline
Creating Understandable and Coherent Paragraphs for Your Essay

Improve your writing with our guides

Writing a Great Research Summary and where to Get Help on it

How to Write a Synthesis Essay

How To Write A Process Essay: Essay Outline, Tips, Topics and Essay Help

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

IMAGES

How to Structure a Theory of Knowledge Essay
How to Structure a Theory of Knowledge Essay
PPT
How to Structure a Theory of Knowledge Essay
essay-writing
Writing a 'describe and evaluate a theory' essay

VIDEO

ESSAY PRACTICE: Factors Affecting Attraction
What is a Knowledge Argument ?
Crafting Strong Paragraphs for CSS Exam: Theory & Practice with Samraiz Hafeez (Part 2)
The Psychological Contract in HRM I Writing Essay
Genderlect Theory Review and Analysis
Criminological Theories: Life Course Approach

COMMENTS

PDF THEORIES AND MODELS OF WRITING
Writing. is a social technology designed to communicate among people. It is learned and produced in social circum-stances, establishes social relationships, changes the writer's social presence, creates shared meanings, and accomplishes social action. Writing partakes of and contributes to the social circumstances in which it arises and bears ...
Implicit Theory of Writing Ability: Relationship to Metacognitive
Students' implicit theory was assessed with a questionnaire with multiple-choice format. To assess students' self-reported task-specific quality and diversity of strategy use, three open-ended questions related to the three writing phases were used. Finally, to assess students' MSK about writing essays, a scenario-based instrument was used.
Theoretically Speaking: An Examination of Four Theories and How They
Writing theory is constantly shifting from a focus on mechanics and form to a focus on creativity and sociability. This literature review analyzes four leading theories for writing instruction: the cognitive processes theory, the sociocultural theory, social cognitive theory, and ecological theory.
Argumentative writing: theory, assessment, and instruction
Argumentative essays are difficult to score in vivo when the assessment goal is to guide timely instructional decisions and support student learning. Concerns about the time-sensitivity of writing assessments have led researchers to develop automated essay scoring (AES) systems (Shermis & Burstein, 2013 ).
PDF Essay Writing Handout
Answer the question; keep it relevant. Develop a logical and clearly structured argument. Support and illustrate your argument. Go beyond description to demonstrate critical thinking. Practice writing and proofreading. 3. Plan Your Essay. Every essay needs a strong and clear structure, organized around an argument.
(PDF) A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing
Model. A cognitive process theory of writing, such as the one presented here, represents a major departure from the traditional paradigm of stages in this. way: in a stage model the major units of ...
My Theory of Writing
My Theory of Writing. By Fernanda Lima Duarte. [email protected]. Writing at the university level can be very challenging for many freshmen students, especially for those who have English as a second language. Building satisfactory writing skill takes practice and great effort.
The Four Main Types of Essay
An essay is a focused piece of writing designed to inform or persuade. There are many different types of essay, but they are often defined in four categories: argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive essays. Argumentative and expository essays are focused on conveying information and making clear points, while narrative and ...
A Review and Evaluation of Prominent Theories of Writing
The review and evaluation of prominent writing theories showed evidence that the frameworks were diverse in their description of writing ideas, concepts, and relationships; structure and level of theory (McEwen & Wills, 2014); and classification according to the four elements described by Raimes (1991).
A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing
A Cognitive Process Model. A cognitive process theory of writing, such as the one presented here, represents a major departure from the traditional paradigm of stages in this way: in a stage model the major units of analysis are stages of completion which reflect the growth of a written product, and these stages are organized.
(PDF) Academic Writing: Theory and Practice
account of the variety of academic literacy practices evident in particular contexts; this. includes negotiating new and varied genres of writing; different disciplinary requirements in. terms of ...
PDF Strategies for Essay Writing
Harvard College Writing Center 2 Tips for Reading an Assignment Prompt When you receive a paper assignment, your first step should be to read the assignment prompt carefully to make sure you understand what you are being asked to do. Sometimes your assignment will be open-ended ("write a paper about anything in the course that interests you").
(PDF) The Essay, in Theory
This essay reconsiders the theory and practice of writing essays in general, and history essays in particular. Specific ways in which writing enables discoveries and ways in which it deepens interpretations are explored. Conclusions are derived for a better agenda, other than offering more content, for an advanced-level history education.
Writing theories and writing pedagogies
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching. 4 (2): 91-110. Writing theories and writing pedagogies Ken Hyland Institute of Education, University of London Abstract This paper explores the main approaches to understanding and teaching writing. Making a broad distinction between theories concerned with texts, with writers and with readers, I ...
Rhetorical functions in academic writing: Using theory
A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. As well as the word "theory", academic researchers use other terms to refer to their explanations and interpretations of phenomena. A perspective is a wider approach. It is more general than a theory. A model is a narrow, simpler explanation or interpretation of a ...
Introduction
The theory of writing is the purpose of writing, a piece based on your own ideas and thoughts from it. There are many forms of writing ranging from the different focus of mechanics to the different focus on creativity and sociability. The four main forms of theory that are used for writing are cognitive processes theory, sociocultural theory ...
From the Editors—The Nuts and Bolts of Writing a Theory Paper: A
Second, the answers to these statements may change as you complete the other exercises. Remember, writing down a response does not lock you into that response as your theory development process advances. Developing theory is a dynamic, consultative, and iterative process, and hence it is expected that some of these answers will change over time.
How to Structure a Theory of Knowledge Essay
Paragraph 1. - Say one or two interesting things about the prescribed title question. This shows us, right away that you know what the question is asking. - Define one or two of the key terms in the title. Get definitions for all of the main words in your title. You don't need to include all of them in your essay, but it's useful to see how ...
explaining and justifying the use of theory via a sentence ...
Sentences skeletons are one way to do this. Sentence skeletons can be used to see how academic rhetoric actually works. You literally strip away the flesh - the content of a piece of prose - to show the bones - the non-content related language which carries and supports the flesh. By filling in the blanks with your own content, you get to ...
Theory of Writing
Jada Jordan-DaSilva . 5/20/2020 . English 110 . Theory of Writing . What is writing? I know that by definition writing is " the activity or skill of marking coherent words on paper and composing text." but when you conceptualize it, it becomes so much more. I know that writing is expressive, it's a sentence that brings your thoughts to life. . Writing is a feeling, it's something that ...
Genre Theory: Critics and Argument
Genre theory, or theory of genre, a fundamental concept in English Studies and literary theory, analyzes how texts are classified into distinct categories based on shared characteristics and conventions. To respond to question what is genre theory means to answer it what it provides. In fact, it provides a systematic framework to understand how genres function as communication tools, shaping ...
Secret Weapon of Essay Writing: Stasis Theory
The stasis theory is extremely beneficial for research, teamwork, and overall essay writing process. When employing stasis theory, famous essay writers investigate and try to determine: Conjecture (facts) Meaning or nature of the issue (definition) Seriousness of the issue (quality) Plan of action (policy).
Theory Of Writing
My Theory of Writing. My theory of writing is the reflection we embody into our writing. We reflect the world around in and express that into words. And into the writing, we reflect on how we could've done better, or another way we could have written a piece. Through reflection you grow, reading books and reflecting on the aspirations you ...
Taking A Closer Look At My Theory Of Writing
The writing theory is simply our idea of what writing is. Our writing theory forms our expectations and practices as writers. In this paper I will be discussing my writing Theory. I understand writing to be a tool that is used to successfully communicate ideas and information to others. To fully understand this theory, we must first look up the ...
Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025
Instead, the theory's adherents argue that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president complete control of the executive branch, so Congress cannot empower agency heads to make decisions ...