Development and Application of Dynamic Assessment Model for College Students’ L2 Writing Argumentation Competence

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.640

Abstract

Abstract:

Argumentation competence is a critical factor affecting the overall quality of college students’ English argumentative writing. Nevertheless, research on its personalized diagnosis and intervention remains limited. Dynamic Assessment (DA) advocates the integration of ability diagnosis and instructional intervention, and its models are characterized by process-orientation, gradualness, and individualization. However, the existing DA models lack a systematic design specifically tailored to argumentation competence. Against this background, the present study aims to develop a DA model for argumentation competence in second language writing to facilitate the development of such competence among college students. First, a DA model was established based on an argumentation rating scale. Then, the experimental group received personalized intervention based on the DA model, whereas the control group was provided with traditional holistic feedback. After 10 weeks of experiment involving four writing tasks, the experimental group outperformed the control group in multiple dimensions, including overall argumentation, sub-claims, evidence, and rebuttal. The experimental group’s argumentation ability demonstrated a trend of significant initial improvement followed by steady development, with differences and imbalance in the development of different dimensions. This study has important implications for the teaching and assessment of argumentation in English argumentative writing, and also has value in the cultivation of college students’ higher-order critical thinking abilities.

Keywords: argumentative writing; argumentation competence; dynamic assessment (DA); DA model; rating scale

摘要：

论证能力是影响大学生英语议论文写作整体质量的重要因素，但对论证能力进行个性化诊断与干预的研究相对匮乏。动态评估倡导能力诊断与教学干预的一体化，其干预模型具有过程性、渐进性和个性化特征，但现有模型缺乏针对论证能力的系统化设计。鉴于此，本研究旨在构建二语写作论证能力的动态评估模型，以促进大学生写作论证能力的发展。研究者依据论证评分量表构建了动态评估模型，并据此对实验组实施个性化干预，同时为对照组提供传统的整体性反馈。对4个写作任务进行10周的追踪后发现，实验组在整体论证、分论点、论据和反驳等维度的表现均优于对照组。实验组的论证能力整体呈现先显著提高、后稳步发展的趋势，且不同论证维度的发展呈现出差异性和不均衡性。本研究对英语议论文写作论证教学及评价具有重要启示，对大学生高阶思辨能力的培养也有较高的参考价值。

关键词: 议论文写作, 论证能力, 动态评估, 动态评估模型, 评分量表

CLC Number:

H319

Meng Yaru, Fu Hua. Development and Application of Dynamic Assessment Model for College Students’ L2 Writing Argumentation Competence[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2026, 48(2): 91-105.

孟亚茹, 付华. 大学生二语写作论证能力动态评估模型构建与应用[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2026, 48(2): 91-105.

Figures/Tables 6

References 36

[1]	ALJAAFREH A & LANTOLF J P. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development[J]. The Modern Language Journal, 1994(4):465-483.
[2]	COFFIN C, CURRY M J, GOODMAN S, et al. Teaching Academic Writing: A Toolkit for Higher Education[M]. New York: Routledge, 2005.
[3]	COHEN J. Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1992(1):155-159.
[4]	EL MAJIDI A, JANSSEN D & DE GRAAF R. The effects of in-class debates on argumentation skills in second language education[J/OL]. System, 2021,101:102576[2021-10-05]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102576.
[5]	HADIDI A. Application of a SCOBA in educational praxis of L2 written argumentative discourse[J]. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2021(1):68-96.
[6]	HIRVELA A. Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat?[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2017,36:69-74.
[7]	KUSHKI A, NASSAJI H & RAHIMI M. Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program[J/OL]. System, 2022,107:102800[2022-06-24]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102800.
[8]	KUSHKI A, RAHIMI M & DAVIN K J. Dynamic assessment of argumentative writing:Mediating task response[J/OL]. Assessing Writing, 2022,52:100606[2022-04-01]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100606.
[9]	LI Hui Helen & ZHANG Lawrence Jun. Investigating effects of small-group student talk on the quality of argument in Chinese tertiary English as a foreign language learners’ argumentative writing[J/OL]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022,13:868045[2022-06-14]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.868045.
[10]	LIU Fulan & STAPLETON P. Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test[J]. System, 2014,45:117-128.
[11]	LIU Fulan & STAPLETON P. Counterargumentation at the primary level:An intervention study investigating the argumentative writing of second language learners[J/OL]. System, 2020,89:102198[2020-04-07]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102198.
[12]	MENG Yaru & FU Hua. Modeling mediation in the dynamic assessment of listening ability from the cognitive diagnostic perspective[J]. The Modern Language Journal, 2023, 107(S1):137-160.
[13]	NASSAJI H, KUSHKI A & RAHIMI M. The differential diagnostic affordances of interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment for L2 argumentative writing[J]. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2021(2):151-175.
[14]	PESSOA S. How SFL and explicit language instruction can enhance the teaching of argumentation in the disciplines[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2017,36:77-78.
[15]	PESSOA S, MITCHELL T D & MILLER R T. Scaffolding the argument genre in a multilingual university history classroom: Tracking the writing development of novice and experienced writers[J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2018,50:81-96.
[16]	POEHNER M E & LANTOLF J P. Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA)[J]. Language Teaching Research, 2013(3):323-342.
[17]	POEHNER M E & YU Lu. Dynamic assessment of L2 writing: Exploring the potential of rubrics as mediation in diagnosing learner emerging abilities[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2022(4):1191-1217.
[18]	QIN Jingjing. Assessing L2 argumentation in the UAE context[C]//MCCALLUM L & COOMBE C. The Assessment of L2 Written English Across the MENA Region. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020:225-240.
[19]	QIN Jingjing & KARABACAK E. The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing[J]. System, 2010(3):444-456.
[20]	RAHIMI M. Effects of integrating motivational instructional strategies into a process-genre writing instructional approach on students’ engagement and argumentative writing[J/OL]. System, 2024,121:103261[2024-09-27]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103261.
[21]	TOULMIN S E. The Uses of Argument[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
[22]	VYGOTSKY L S. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions[M]. RIEBER R W(Ed.). New York: Plenum, 1997.
[23]	WOLFE C R, BRITT M A & BUTLER J A. Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation[J]. Written Communication, 2009(2):183-209.
[24]	YU Lu & POEHNER M E. Developing L2 writing abilities through an instructional enrichment program informed by dynamic assessment[J/OL]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2023,60:101013[2023-06-21]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101013.
[25]	耿雪, 孟亚茹, 杜文博. 计算机动态评估的二语发展嬗变和研究框架[J]. 现代外语, 2022(1):126-136.
[26]	金晓宏. 大学英语议论文写作培养思辨能力的教学路径研究[J]. 江西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018(2):134-139.
[27]	李克, 张苑. 英语学习者的写作修辞能力构成与调查研究[J]. 外语界, 2021(3):55-63.
[28]	李佐文. ChatGPT赋能外语教学:场景与策略[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2024(1):109-118.
[29]	刘应亮, 李思琦. 英语学习者议论文论证结构特征研究[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报, 2017(1):100-107,160.
[30]	马利红, 刘坚. 国际语言学领域思辨能力研究进展与趋势——基于SSCI期刊论文的可视化分析[J]. 外语界, 2018(4):59-66.
[31]	穆从军. 英语专业学生的写作思辨能力调查[J]. 现代外语, 2016(5):693-703.
[32]	穆从军. 读后创写思辨能力培养模式及其有效性研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2023(2):225-237,319-320.
[33]	王淼. 二语写作句法复杂性研究的新发展[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2019(2):81-99.
[34]	文秋芳, 刘润清. 从英语议论文分析大学生抽象思维特点[J]. 外国语, 2006(2):49-58.
[35]	吴文, 甘勇. 社会文化视野下二语习得研究25年[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2011(6):75-83.
[36]	杨连瑞, 宋嘉伟, 杨向梅. 基于绪论的二语词汇习得研究述评[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2024(3):30-44.

评分维度	评分指标	描述语
整体论证	完整性	1.论证结构完整，使用多种论证成分，包括中心论点、分论点、论据、反方观点、反方论据、反驳、反驳论据
	合理性	2.论证结构合理，篇章段落和各论证成分的安排符合逻辑，条理清晰
	充分性	3.论证内容充分，论据丰富而翔实，分析透彻且论证充分
分论点	充分性	4.提供多个分论点来支撑中心论点，从多个视角看待问题
	相关性	5.分论点与中心论点紧密联系，能够支撑中心论点
	清晰性	6.分论点表述清楚、明确，高度凝练，概括性强
	逻辑性	7.支持分论点的逻辑推理过程充分且严密
论据	充分性	8.提供多个论据来支持分论点
	准确性	9.论据准确可靠，如研究结果、统计数据等来源可靠且内容准确
	相关性	10.论据与分论点密切相关，即论据紧扣分论点，能够有力支撑分论点
	说服力	11.论据说服力较强，如研究结果、统计数据、个人经历、事例等
反驳	合理性	12.反驳论据准确可靠，逻辑严密，令人信服
	充分性	13.反驳论证内容丰富，分析全面而详尽
	针对性	14.反驳具有针对性，能够直击反方论据的核心漏洞，有效驳斥其合理性

评分维度	评分指标	描述语
整体论证	完整性	1.论证结构完整，使用多种论证成分，包括中心论点、分论点、论据、反方观点、反方论据、反驳、反驳论据
	合理性	2.论证结构合理，篇章段落和各论证成分的安排符合逻辑，条理清晰
	充分性	3.论证内容充分，论据丰富而翔实，分析透彻且论证充分
分论点	充分性	4.提供多个分论点来支撑中心论点，从多个视角看待问题
	相关性	5.分论点与中心论点紧密联系，能够支撑中心论点
	清晰性	6.分论点表述清楚、明确，高度凝练，概括性强
	逻辑性	7.支持分论点的逻辑推理过程充分且严密
论据	充分性	8.提供多个论据来支持分论点
	准确性	9.论据准确可靠，如研究结果、统计数据等来源可靠且内容准确
	相关性	10.论据与分论点密切相关，即论据紧扣分论点，能够有力支撑分论点
	说服力	11.论据说服力较强，如研究结果、统计数据、个人经历、事例等
反驳	合理性	12.反驳论据准确可靠，逻辑严密，令人信服
	充分性	13.反驳论证内容丰富，分析全面而详尽
	针对性	14.反驳具有针对性，能够直击反方论据的核心漏洞，有效驳斥其合理性

评分维度	评分指标	动态评估互动模型
4个一级评分维度	14个二级评分指标	1. 就量表中哪个评分维度需要改进向学生提问
		2. 指明需要改进的评分维度
		3. 就哪个二级评分指标需要改进向学生提问
		4. 指明需要改进的评分指标
		5. 利用文中的关键词和句子进行分析和解释
		6. 进一步解释并提供修改建议或解决方案

评分维度	评分指标	动态评估互动模型
4个一级评分维度	14个二级评分指标	1. 就量表中哪个评分维度需要改进向学生提问
		2. 指明需要改进的评分维度
		3. 就哪个二级评分指标需要改进向学生提问
		4. 指明需要改进的评分指标
		5. 利用文中的关键词和句子进行分析和解释
		6. 进一步解释并提供修改建议或解决方案

测试	论证维度	实验组		对照组		MD	t	df	p	Cohen’s d
测试	论证维度	M	SD	M	SD	MD	t	df	p	Cohen’s d
前测	整体论证	3.17	0.96	3.26	0.92	-0.08	-0.34	58.00	0.734	-0.09
	分论点	3.36	0.77	3.47	0.73	-0.11	-0.57	58.00	0.571	-0.15
	论据	3.00	0.91	3.04	0.81	-0.04	-0.19	58.00	0.848	-0.05
	反驳	2.16	1.22	2.19	1.42	-0.03	-0.09	58.00	0.931	-0.02
	论证总分	41.44	9.58	42.40	8.51	-0.96	-0.41	58.00	0.684	-0.11
后测	整体论证	4.68	0.40	3.46	0.81	1.23	7.54	49.23	< 0.001	1.91
	分论点	4.31	0.40	4.11	0.58	0.20	1.46	56.00	0.150	0.40
	论据	4.23	0.49	3.56	0.83	0.67	3.83	53.07	< 0.001	0.98
	反驳	3.91	0.87	2.31	1.52	1.59	5.02	52.65	< 0.001	1.29
	论证总分	59.92	5.93	48.00	8.42	11.92	6.32	55.75	< 0.001	1.63