Engineering students are under pressure to achieve better English abilities required for international communication in the profession. This paper explores reports concerning English education for engineering and focuses on demands for oral and written communication, emphasizing oral presentations, professional conversations and report writing. A sociolinguistic picture of communicative events is examined for a general idea of English instruction. The examination indicates that incorporation of authentic communicative events into English courses has become a necessity to help students' transition from the classroom to the workplace. Moreover, the subject contents of communication should be adequately discipline-specific to enhance the value of training. The target level of comprehensibility of communication should be close to that of native speakers to succeed in real communication. Further research is recommended as demands vary from context to context.
This study investigated the effectiveness of updated argumentation quality criteria. It evaluated the scale and quality of selected argumentation models judged by the new criteria. Effectiveness concerned content validity, reliability, and practicality of the criteria. The argumentation models were regarded as possessing good quality when they featured important elements in the criteria and received high scores. Five argumentation models were purposefully selected from an argumentative writing course. The models were evaluated by three evaluators with expertise in academic writing. Analysis confirmed the effectiveness of the quality criteria and scale. It addressed all important concerns in evaluation of argumentation; evaluation scores were in accordance with each other, and the important argumentation elements carried equivalent weight. Only three of the models received a quality score of 4 on a scale of 0 (null) to 5 (highest), because they did not feature all quality elements required by the criteria. The updated framework and argumentation models can be further employed for teaching, learning and evaluating argumentation.
Abstract-This paper presents an updated and practical criteria and scale for teaching, learning, and evaluating argumentation. The ability criteria and scale is generated from existing knowledge of argumentation as expected by CEFR, TOEFL and IELTS, as well as recent interest in argumentation. Examination of the academic literature suggests that the new criteria and scale should consider relevancy, reasoning, language use, organization and writer's voice. Relevancy has not yet been seriously highlighted in the existing criteria. Reasoning, language use and organization are common criteria in argumentation. Writer's voice is not emphasized in the existing criteria but often discussed in recent publications on argumentation. It is added to the updated framework in this paper to keep up with advancements in the field. This new framework could be a powerful option for teaching, learning and evaluating argumentation particularly in EFL or ESL contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.