Exploring the Power of Persuasion in Written Argumentation: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study (QASA)

Abstract

Winnie-Karen Giera*, Manfred Stede, Lucas Deutzmann and Eric Graßnick

This mixed-methods pilot study examines the effects of structured classroom debate training on the written persuasiveness of pro–con argumentative essays produced by ninth-grade students in non-academic-track schools. The research forms part of the “Fair Debating and Written Argumentation” project, the first in a German-speaking context to systematically integrate oral and written argumentation instruction. In the QASA (Qualitative Argumentation Structure Analysis) sub- study, 18 essays from nine students were analyzed before and after a six-session debate intervention. Quantitative five- point ratings, based on a validated writing assessment framework and qualitative argumentation structure mapping, indicated that most students increased the number and variety of arguments, incorporated more examples, and improved their overall persuasive coherence. These findings align with international evidence demonstrating that structured debate fosters critical thinking and supports the transfer of skills from oral to written argumentation. Implications for inclusive writing instruction, formative feedback through argument structure diagrams, and the design of integrated oral–written argumentation curricula are discussed.

HTML PDF