argumentative essay prompt

newspaper reporter resume examples

To be able to intrigue a reader, the most important thing is to have great characters. Characters should live, feel, express, and act like real people to be seen as genuine. A great way to get to know your characters is to ask questions about them and answer as honestly as possible from their perspective. Use as many or as few as you want and get to know your characters more closely. Use the questions as you would in an interview. I personally find this easier to get into the heads of my characters. What is your full name?

Argumentative essay prompt dissertation droit accroche

Argumentative essay prompt

The student should be ready to defend a personal position by realizing the most powerful points of view for the opposite side. The authors of this article decided to share one of the most powerful argumentative essay examples with the readers. It is difficult to say uniquely whether the voting procedure should become obligatory for the US citizens. It is a controversial issue with many opposing views.

Still, the arguments in favor are much stronger. Voting should be mandatory in the USA as it would lead to more accurate outcomes and reflect the position of minorities. Low voter turnout in the US has already become a huge problem for the democratic movements. As mentioned by Matsler , approximately half of the population which has a right to vote attends elections. The active voters go to the polling place, make their choice, and the leader is elected. That is how it works. Thus, the rest of the population may stay unhappy with the results, but there is no chance to change them once one of the candidates collects enough votes.

To conclude, a mandatory voting would promote the accuracy of elections results, enabling more voters to learn what they were supporting. After all, it is one of the most effective methods to fight corruption and other consequences of false authorities. These people know what they do. They have more than talented writers on board to help troubleshoot any kind of academic problems round-the-clock!

Creative essay writing is always a great issue for all students. For creative writing essays, you need to get something more than just a big interest in your topic. It is about self-expression of a student. In most situations, it should be a narrative and creative nonfiction essays.

Look what our ex How to write a narrative essay and how to make it an interesting piece of art to read are two questions students struggling all the time. Just tell a story in an interesting manner and create a perfectly-organized paper. Let our team of writers explain t Such statistics prove it makes sense to study how to write a persuasive essay.

A person who masters the art of persuading people will be able to build a successful career in any field and build effective relationships. Academic e In need of professional academic backing? Choose your Type of Work. Writing Editing Slides. Set Pages Count to. Related posts.

Is animal testing for beauty and skin products necessary? Should certain dog breeds be considered illegal? How should endangered animals be protected? Should people keep exotic animals as pets? Who or what is responsible for animal extinction? Should farm animals be treated with antibiotics? Should the death penalty be banned? Should the US prison system include for-profit prisons? Should Confederate statues and memorials come down?

Should the US switch to a single-payer health system? Should community college be free? Should the minimum wage remain the same? Should the government regulate big tech companies? Should the US participate in reparations? Should vaccines be mandatory? Subscribe to my email list. Subscribe to receive freebies, teaching ideas, and my latest content by email. I won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time. Built with ConvertKit.

Think, that write a buisness plan think

Browse Easel Activities. Easel Assessments. Quizzes with auto-grading that will be available for purchase on TpT soon. Make an assessment now. Log In Join Us. View Wish List View Cart. Previous Next. Write On with Jamie 2. Grade Levels.

English Language Arts , Grammar , Vocabulary. CCSS W. Formats Included. Add one to cart. Buy licenses to share. Add to Wish List. Share this resource. Report this resource to TpT. The Teacher-Author indicated this resource includes assets from Google Workspace e. Also included in. Teaching argumentative writing can be hard, but each lesson in this bundle guides students through a step-by-step process of writing a 5-paragraph or more essay.

The lessons can be used in class or assigned for distance learning as independent student work. The instructional videos with writing tu. View Bundle. Teaching writing argumentative, expository, compare and contrast, narrative, persuasive can be hard, but each lesson in this bundle of lessons guides students through a step-by-step process of writing a 5-paragraph or more essay.

The lessons can be used in class or assigned for distance lear. Description Teaching argumentative writing can be hard, but this lesson guides students through a step-by-step process of writing a 5-paragraph or more essay. Write On! Total Pages. Report this Resource to TpT. Reported resources will be reviewed by our team.

Standards Log in. Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, using search terms effectively; assess the credibility and accuracy of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation.

With some guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on how well purpose and audience have been addressed. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented. Show more. In contrast to those existing tools, we compare two drafts using the ArgRewrite revision assistant tool.

In terms of revision analysis, work on Wikipedia is the most related to the study of academic writing. However, because some fine-grained Wikipedia categories e. In both cases Wikipedia or educational , previous studies have focused on investigating the reliability of manually annotating and automatically classifying coarse-level and detailed revision categories, as well as on demonstrating correlations between category frequency and outcome measures.

In contrast, our study manipulates whether ArgRewrite provides feedback using coarse-level surface versus content or detailed e. However, sentence-level revision categories may not always be appropriate. For example, a sentence revision may contain a few fluency changes at the beginning, with substantial information added at the end. In that case, that sentence contains both surface and content revisions.

Unlike collaborative writing, our work focus on multiple revisions by a single author. Although our ArgRewrite tool does show the number of revisions for each revision category, we do not categorize the revisions based on the frequency. In our tool, the revision are highlighted in both drafts of the essay. In argument mining, the main goal is to find argument structures and their relations from text. It also focuses on a single text. However, few tools are available for argument mining.

The tool provides feedback on the argumentation quality of a given text. While we provide revision analysis and show it with corresponding highlight colors on our web-based tool, this is not a study about providing formative feedback on student essays, or the quality of feedback.

Rather, our study focuses on helping students to understand their previous revision effort, or how they addressed the feedback received on the previous draft of an essay. In our study, self-regulation occurs both during the reflection of previous revision efforts and during the actual revision process. Our ArgRewite tool does not suggest any future revision automatically. Instead, it presents its analysis but not quality evaluation of previous revisions so that students can make informed decisions when they further revise the essay.

ArgRewrite essay revision process for experimental study. In our experiment, there are two rounds of essay revision, Draft1 to Draft2, and Draft2 to Draft3. After a few days of finishing Draft1, each participant received expert feedback The experts were a professor and a graduate student in the School of Education, and a trained undergraduate student.

Based on the feedback, they revised their Draft1 and produced Draft2. After finishing Draft2, participants were randomly assigned to use different conditions of the ArgRewrite in a lab environment. They did not receive any feedback on their Draft2. Instead, they are shown the ArgRewrite interface on a computer highlighting their previous revision from Draft1 to Draft2.

Participants were asked to use the tool to revise their Draft2 and create a final and generally improved version of the essay, Draft3. In Wizard-of-Oz prototyping, a human manually handles the automation, but the student cannot tell the difference from the web-interface they see.

We did so to eliminate the confounding factors of NLP automation errors when we compare different conditions. Modified, added, or deleted sentences were then extracted as revisions. The ArgRewrite server automatically extracts those revisions and classifies them into different revision purpose categories. In our Wizard of Oz experimental setting, a human then fixes the server errors for alignment and classification before the participants start the second round of revision in the lab.

In the lab-based experiment, participants first read a short tutorial on using the ArgRewrite tool. Then they were asked to go through their previous revision effort. In conditions B, C, and D, they also submitted confirmation if they agree or disagree with the revision categories for each of the revised sentences the tool is showing them. They did so before and after completing the final revision. Finally, after the participants finished revising the essay, they were asked to answer survey questions about the interface.

Out of 86 participants, 69 were native English speakers, and 17 non-native speakers. The number of non-native speakers in conditions A,B,C,D are 3,4,5,5 respectively. According to Verbert et al. Each ArgRewrite condition has two parts - the overview interface and the rewrite interface. Then on the rewrite interface, they were asked to go through each revision label to determine whether or not the system identified their revision purposes correctly.

Finally, users were allowed to further revise their essay to improve the overall quality. Example of the overview interface from ArgRewrite condition C. The first interface that writers see after logging into ArgRewrite is the Overview interface.

Here, writers are presented with overall visualizations of their revision patterns. The three main components of this overview interface are the revision purpose categories, the revision map, and the revision distribution pie chart. The revision purpose categories are highlighted with their corresponding colors on the left, the revision map is shown in the middle, and the revision distribution pie chart is shown on the right.

The components are described below. Surface revisions are the changes that do not alter the meaning of the sentence, e. Content revisions consist of meaningful textual changes. Surface changes in conditions C and D are shown with different levels of blue colors from the cold color scale. Content changes are again shown with warm colors, but take up different colors from the warm color scale. Revision map for different conditions. Revision map shows the drafts as two columns of color-coded tiles, each representing a sentence.

Each tile represents a sentence in the draft; the white space between groups of tiles represents the paragraph breaks. Tiles are highlighted with colors of their corresponding revision categories. The shading of the tiles in each row represents whether the student added to, deleted, or modified the original sentence or made no change.

This revision map allows a student to look at all the revisions they made at different locations in the essay at a glance. Students can also easily understand what types of revisions they are making from the highlights. The orange color means it is a content revision.

The light gray shade in the next two rows indicates that those sentences are not revised. Tiles in row 4 and 5 indicate modified content and surface revisions respectively. It shows that the first sentence is a deleted general content revision, the fourth sentence is modified evidence, and the fifth sentence is a modified fluency revision. The overview interface also contains a pie chart showing the distribution of the frequency of different revision purpose categories.

While the revision purpose categories and the revision map show the number of revisions and the places where revisions are made, the pie chart adds the benefit of easy comparison of the distribution of different types of revisions. Looking at the pie chart, a student can easily understand the influence of the types of revisions they have made between Draft1 to Draft2.

The rewrite interface contains the revision purpose categories, revision details window, four tabs containing the prompt and three essay drafts, and the revision map similar to the overview interface except for condition D.

To encourage students the texts on the drafts tabs are highlighted with the corresponding revision color. In conditions B and C, the full sentence is highlighted. In condition D, only the revised text within a sentence is highlighted. Students can directly modify the essay on the Draft3 tab, which initially contains Draft2 to start with.

The character differences are highlighted with red in condition B and C. The rewrite interface also provides the revision map of sentences to facilitate the navigation through the essay. Students can click on a tile on the revision map on the rewrite interface to look at that particular sentence. However, this is provided for conditions B and C only.

On the rewrite interface, the small round button beside each tile of the revision map is used to highlight the confirmed revision categories when the students go through their previous revisions and submit their agreement about the revision categories. ArgRewrite control interface. The ArgRewrite condition A is designed as a baseline containing no revision feedback, to compare with all other ArgRewrite conditions where writers receive different levels of feedback or analysis of their previous revision effort.

Since there is no feedback, it does not contain any revision purpose categorization, revision map, or revision pie chart. Therefore, condition A does not have an overview interface. The rewrite interface contains the plain text of the student essays for each Draft. ArgRewrite condition B is designed to provide simple revision feedback to the students. It includes all the components of the overview and the rewrite interface. Revision categorization is shown at the sentence-level.

Condition B shows the revisions highlighted using only the top-level binary revision purpose categories - surface and content. Similarly, sentences with content revisions are highlighted with orange. Similar to condition A, condition B also has four tabs to show the essay prompt and the drafts. Unlike conditions C and D, condition B is simple in terms of categorization of revisions.

In contrast to condition B, students who use condition C to revise their essay can, for example, spot the difference between word-usage versus grammar changes, claim versus evidence changes, etc. It is more informative compared to the control condition and to condition B with its binary revision categorization. Similarly to condition B, the rewrite interface in condition C also shows four tabs and highlights the whole sentence with the identified revision color.

Condition D is designed to provide more detailed feedback for the revisions students make. Unlike conditions B and C, condition D can focus on multiple different revisions within a single sentence. In the rewrite interface, each sub-sentential revision is highlighted with its corresponding revision purpose color code. By clicking on each revised sentence, a horizontal revision map provides the abstract visualization of how it differs from the original sentence: which sub-sentential units are added, modified, or deleted, and what is the purpose of that revision.

To evaluate our research hypothesis that more detailed feedback is more helpful i. RQ1: Do students perceive the ArgRewrite to be clear and easy to use? RQ2: Do students find the ArgRewrite helpful for their writing? RQ3: Is ArgRewrite beneficial for student essay improvement? Our analyses for RQ1 and RQ2 were based on data from a 16 question survey that participants completed after using ArgRewrite to revise their essays.

Eight questions about the perceived ease of use and helpfulness and of the system for supporting essay revision were asked of all participants questions Another set of 8 questions focused on usefulness of specific interface components and were asked only of participants in conditions B, C, and D. Each question was answered using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 indicating strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Finally, we analyze the revision categories in student essays to answer RQ4. In RQ4, we also use t-test to compare revisions within conditions. To answer RQ1 , we combine two survey questions that ask about the perceived ease of use of the tool. The questions asked students if they find the system easy to use, and if their interaction with the system is clear and understandable.

For perceived ease of use, the overall difference between conditions is not significant. Looking at pairwise comparison, condition A has a higher mean compared to all other conditions, and Condition D has the lowest mean. Condition A, which is the control condition without any revision feedback, was thus the easiest condition to use. This is not surprising because of the simplicity of the rewrite interface for condition A. However, this mean-value is only significantly higher than condition D, where we provided the most specific revision feedback.

We think this lower mean value reflects the complex information display of the revision categories at the sub-sentence level. We then separately examine questions 9—16 regarding usefulness and actual usage of the interface components. Taking the means over questions 3—8 shows that overall, there is a significant difference between conditions although the ANOVA effect size is low.

Students perceived condition C with detailed sentence-level revision feedback to be more useful compared to conditions A and B. In other words, from this ANOVA result we can say that condition A proved to be less helpful despite being the easiest to use. Students also perceived detailed sub-sentential revision feedback to be more useful compared to no feedback. They were encouraged to do more content revisions.

Overall, we can say that detailed feedback is more useful than no feedback or binary feedback which supports our hypothesis. However, we did not see any significant difference between sentence versus sub-sentential revision feedback C versus D. Therefore we speculate that reducing the granularity of revision feedback might not be very beneficial after all.

We get a mixed signal looking at the questions 9—16 that only target the conditions with feedback B, C, and D. Overall, ANOVA shows no significant difference between conditions for this group of questions that focus on the actual usage of the interface. However, pairwise comparisons do show some significant differences. For example, students find the revision windows more helpful when they were shown sentence-level revision feedback compared to sub-sentential feedback.

However, most of the specific components of the overview and rewrite interface did not show any difference between the conditions e. On the other hand, a detailed description of revision purpose seemed more inspiring than the binary description question Detailed sub-sentential feedback was also trustworthy compared to sentence-level binary feedback.

Given the Wizard of Oz scenario, the accuracy of the system feedback is objectively similar across conditions. All three drafts written by each participant were scored separately by two researchers, both of whom were experienced high school English and college instructors. The quadratic weighted kappa QWK is 0.

To determine the improvement of student essay we calculated the normalized essay score gain NEG from Draft1 to Draft3 and Draft2 to Draft3. We did not consider the essay score gain from Draft1 to Draft2 because that step does not involve using our system. Normalized essay score gain is calculated as follows:. Condition B was trending better than Condition A. But there was no significant difference between B, C, and D. We also did not see any significant difference for between any conditions.

This result is in line with our previous research question results, in which we observed that students found detailed sentence-level revision feedback to be more helpful compared to no revision feedback at all. To answer RQ4 , we looked at the types of revisions surface vs. We expected to see fewer revisions with ArgRewrite since it is the second stage of revising the same essay. Within each condition, we compare the number of surface and content revisions across revision stage using paired t-test.

In conditions A and B, we observed significantly more surface revisions and fewer content revisions when revising using ArgRewrite compared to revising without ArgRewrite, but the distribution of types of revisions is not significantly different in condition C and D, when with or without ArgRewrite. ANOVA result showed no significant difference between conditions for the average number of content or surface revisions. As we have mentioned before, according to previous work, content revisions e.

With the lowest percentage of content revisions in condition C, students in that condition had higher essay score gains. This result indicates that students who received revision feedback generated revisions that help them improve the essay compared to students who did not receive any feedback. Although students with no feedback generated more content revisions, we speculate those revisions may be irrelevant or unnecessary for supporting the argument. The findings of this study highlight a tension point that is worth further examination.

On the other hand, there was an inverse relationship between the granularity of feedback and the usability of the system. Our findings consistently showed that feedback on detailed revision categorization is better than no feedback. For some evaluation measures, detailed feedback is also better than binary feedback. However, we did not find much difference between sentence versus sub-sentence level revision feedback.


Agree with preface of a thesis opinion