It’s difficult to extrapolate the conclusions from this study’s sample because it’s not random. Furthermore, the response rate to the questionnaire is quite low, and the number of student texts reviewed is limited. Students that are hesitant to write may have declined to take part in the study. Respondents to surveys have a predisposition to respond positively rather than negatively, and it is possible that some of the participants paint a more optimistic picture through their answers than is supported by the data (Langdridge & Hagger-Johnson, 2013).
Nonetheless, it’s intriguing to look at some tendencies, and we’d argue that the findings may be applied to other situations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
By analysis of Last minute cheap essay
Analysis and findings
The results of the survey demonstrate that the students have been taught argumentative writing and the use of sources to varying degrees, and they claim to grasp these skills to varying degrees (Table 2). The responses are dispersed over the scale, indicating that many of the participants believe they have neither acquired nor mastered argumentative writing with sources.
More writers can be found at
As shown in Table 2, just over half of the responses in answer alternatives 3–5 fall into all four categories, indicating skepticism about whether they have been taught argumentative writing and the use of sources, as well as whether they have mastered it. In terms of argumentative writing, the chart demonstrates that only a small percentage of students agree that they have been taught and mastered the skill. The percentage of people who disagree that they obtained such schooling is slightly higher. The box diagrams in these two sections support this conclusion (Appendix 1, Figures 1 and 2). When it comes to teaching and understanding the use of sources, the picture is a little different, as respondents are more evenly distributed in terms of whether they agree or disagree.
If students have been taught argumentative writing, there is a significant connection.66 (p.05) between section 1 and section 2 if they believe they have mastered it. This means that how much they agree that they were taught argumentative writing is proportional to how much they believe they have mastered it. In terms of source usage, there is a.35 (p0.05) association between section 3, if students have been taught source use before, and section 4, whether they believe they have mastered it. This indicates that there is no clear link between students’ perceptions of mastery and past instruction.
Text analysis by students
The examination of the student texts reveals what aspects of argumentative writing the students struggled with the most. The following topics emerged from the thematic analysis of student texts: unclear problem in introduction, unclear section division, unclear discussion of positive and negative aspects, unclear conclusion, informal or ungrammatical language, missing or incorrect source reference, and missing or incorrect bibliography. The number of texts in which these difficulties were discovered is indicated.
The key obstacles of argumentative writing, as seen above, are to express a clear problem in the opening, highlight positive and negative features of a case, and consistently split the text into relevant sections. There were also eight texts with language issues and eight texts with missing or erroneous bibliographies.
There were also a few works that lacked source references, had an ambiguous finish, and passages with ambiguous themes.
The students presented the text’s theme without saying what the topic of the debate should be, which was typical of the introductions. They were glad to announce that a meeting will be held, but it was unclear what the meeting would cover, as seen in Example 1 below.
1st Case
The kindergarten’s role as a social institution will be detailed in this writing assignment, as well as a discussion of the kindergarten’s functions in society. The key points of this writing exercise’s material will be summarised at the end.
The student here repeats the thesis text and makes a suggestion about the thesis structure. What’s needed is a more detailed discussion of what’s coming next, as well as some context for the subject. In this case, the problem’s superficiality and lack of specificity are evident.
Various obstacles are portrayed in the material when it comes to imprecise section separation. Sections of certain books include multiple themes and should have been separated into at least two sections. The paragraphs in many manuscripts are not correctly indicated. Alternatively, they are denoted in a variety of ways, including line leaps and simply starting a new line. Another issue is the use of line jumps without the paragraph finishing.
The second major point about the debate is echoed in practically all of the texts. It’s unclear what’s being discussed, and the texts focus more on explanations than conversations. There are a lot of good thoughts on the kindergarten’s role in society, but they aren’t really problematized. Integration and socializing are discussed, as well as providing care, learning, joy, mastery, raising, and education to youngsters. These functions are explained to some extent, and references to the framework plan are frequently made, although they are not extensively examined or problematized.
Many students have mastered the art of concluding the material in a clear and concise manner. I’d like you to write my paper for me. Those that lack a coherent conclusion have either deleted it entirely or concluded something unrelated to the thesis’s main point, as shown in example 2 below.
Read More References:
