Language Learning & Technology February 2018, Volume 22, Issue 1

ISSN 1094-3501 pp. 97–118

ARTICLE

Improving argumentative writing: Effects of a

blended learning approach and gamification
Yau Wai Lam, The University of Hong Kong
Khe Foon Hew, The University of Hong Kong
Kin Fung Chiu, The University of Hong Kong

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of a blended learning approach—involving the thesis, analysis,
and synthesis key (TASK) procedural strategy; online Edmodo discussions; online message labels; and
writing models—on student argumentative writing in a Hong Kong secondary school. It also examined
whether the application of digital game mechanics increased student online contribution and writing
performance. Three classes of Secondary 4 students (16- to 17-year-olds) participated in the 7-week
study. The first experimental group (n = 22) utilized the blended learning + gamification approach. The
second experimental group (n = 30) utilized only the blended learning approach. In the control group (n
= 20), a teacher-led direct-instruction approach on the components of argumentation was employed.
Data sources included students’ pre- and post-test written essays, students’ online Edmodo postings, and
student and teacher interviews. We found a significant improvement in students’ writing using the
blended learning approach. On-topic online contributions were significantly higher when gamification
was adopted. Student and teacher opinions on the blended learning approach were also examined.
Keywords: Writing, Blended Learning and Teaching, Instructional Design
Language(s) Learned in this Study: English
APA Citation: Lam, Y. W., Hew, K. F., & Chiu, K. F. (2017). Improving argumentative writing: Effects of a
blended learning approach and gamification. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 97–118.
https://dx.doi.org/10125/44583

Introduction

The ability to make a good argument is imperative in today’s society. Kuhn (1991) considered
argumentation to be a thinking skill essential to idea formulation, problem-solving, and good judgment.
However, compared to other topics in education (e.g., science education), few empirical studies have
focused specifically on training students to write argumentative text (Lukomskaya, 2015; Nussbaum &
Schraw, 2007). We begin this article by briefly describing the research on English argumentative writing.
We then discuss our investigation to improve secondary school Hong Kong ESL students’ argumentative
writing under three different conditions, in which learning strategies were manipulated.
Fundamentally, good arguments have two sides: claims and counterclaims (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007).
Claims–counterclaims integration is found to be more credible in written texts, because the writer appears
to be more knowledgeable and less biased (O’Keefe, 1999). More specifically, argumentative writing is
the process of making a claim, challenging it, supporting it with reasons, questioning the reasons,
rebutting them, and finally reaching a conclusion (Kuhn, 1991). Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik (1990)
propose a similar model of argumentative writing that includes evidence, claim, warrant, backing, and
rebuttal.
The most common method for measuring the quality of argumentation is textual analysis of student
Copyright © 2018 Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, & Kin Fung Chiu
98 Language Learning & Technology

essays (Jonassen & Kim, 2010). The two main types of conceptual models for analyzing argumentation
include (Inch & Warnick, 2002): (a) the standard models, which analyze essays according to typical
argumentation elements such as claim, counterclaim, rebuttal, and supporting data (e.g., Liu & Stapleton,
2014; Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005), and (b) the more specific Toulmin-based models, which seek to
further categorize supporting claims into grounds and warrants.
Previous studies in the context of English as first language (L1) have found poor student performance in
argumentative writing. For example, Crowhurst (1990) reported that young writers started their essays as
an argument but then drifted into narratives that were mainly descriptive. Native English-speaking college
students tended to ignore opposing viewpoints when writing arguments to reason with their peers (Felton,
Crowell, & Liu, 2015). Toplak and Stanovich (2003) similarly found undergraduate native English-
speaking students generated more my-side bias (i.e., the tendency to ignore evidence against a position the
person favors). This was also affirmed in studies by other researchers (e.g., Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005;
Wolfe & Britt, 2008), who found native English-speaking participants tended to present claims that
supported their position and ignored counterclaims. Basically, research in L1 context suggests that typical
student weaknesses of argumentative writing include lack of support for reasons, counterclaims, and
supporting reasons for counterclaims.
Second-language writing researchers have also examined the performance of second language (L2)
English learners in argumentative writing, particularly in higher education contexts. Compared to L1
learners, L2 learners generally face greater challenges with argumentative writing (El-Henawy, Dadour,
Salem, & El-Bassuony, 2012). The first possible reason for this may be attributed to cultural background.
For example, Indonesian EFL university students usually avoid giving counterarguments because
criticizing other people, especially those of a higher social status, is considered impolite (Arsyad, 1999).
Second, EFL learners may encounter greater grammatical deficiencies and limitations in vocabulary.
Third, L2 learners lack knowledge of the argumentative structure (El-Henawy et al., 2012; Hirose, 2003;
Liu & Stapleton, 2014). Similar to L1 writings, deficiencies in acknowledging counterarguments and
refuting them are often present in L2 learners’ arguments (Liu & Stapleton, 2014). Most EFL university
learners in China, for example, did not supply a counter-argument section in their essays (Liu &
Stapleton, 2014; Qin & Karabacak, 2010). Hirose (2003) reported that Japanese EFL learners’ experience
in argumentative writing was practically non-existent as most L2 writing instruction was oriented toward
translation at the sentence level. El-Henawy et al. (2012) found that Egyptian EFL learners failed to
consider opposing viewpoints. This finding was supported by Rusfandi (2015), who found that a majority
of third-year Indonesian EFL learners developed a one-sided model of argumentation in their essays by
focusing only on how to state their main claims and providing relevant reasons for it.

Instructional Strategies

Despite cultural and language barriers, researchers in L2 writing have argued that, with relevant
instruction, EFL students can overcome the difficulties of argumentative writing (Bacha, 2010). Since
most of the research on L2 has been closely dependent on L1 research, L1 methods have had a significant
influence on the development of L2 writing approaches (Myles, 2002). As such, the standard approach
used by many teachers in both L1 and L2 contexts is explicit or direct instruction on argumentation (Cho
& Jonassen, 2002): the setting of the lexical standards and tone, the organization of the argumentative
writing, and the assessment of arguments. Advocates of this method believe knowing that is a necessary
prerequisite for knowing how to (Crowhurst, 1990). However, research findings has shown mixed results.
Several studies showed that direct instruction improved argumentative writing (e.g., Nussbaum &
Schraw, 2007; Sanders, Wiseman, & Gass, 1994). Others suggested no effect (e.g., Knudson, 1994;
Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Kuo, 2007).
In Hong Kong, argumentative essay writing instruction similarly relies heavily on direct instruction from
teachers, with a particular focus on appropriate lexical items and essay structure. Even though students
are encouraged to research their topics beforehand, they tend to wait for the teacher’s answers. Students
rarely practice independent thinking (Murphy, 1987), and seldom proactively consider opposing views
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 99

from different parties. This corroborates other researchers’ observations that awareness of argumentation
principles does not necessarily equate proficient application of these principles (e.g., Reznitskaya et al.,
2007; Rusfandi, 2015).
Some scholars have advocated the use of alternative methods to facilitate learner development of
argumentative writing, such as constraint-based argumentation scaffold (Cho & Jonassen, 2002), self-
regulated strategy development (El-Henawy et al., 2012), model pieces of writing (Knudson, 1992;
Lancaster, 2011), electronic outlining (De Smet, Broekkamp, Brand-Gruwel, & Kirschner, 2011),
question prompts (Jonassen et al., 2009), or graphic organizer (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007). Yet again,
past research findings did not always show consistent positive results. For example, although graphic
organizers may help increase rebuttals (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007), they may not necessarily enhance
students’ critical understanding of issues (Scheuer et al., 2010). Jonassen et al. (2009) use a series of
question prompts (e.g., Whose perspective supports your selection? How might someone supporting the
other solution disagree with your preferred solution?) to engage students in argumentation about
engineering ethical dilemmas. The researchers found that these prompts did not help students to
adequately consider and support counterclaims. Knudson (1992) found no significant differences between
instructions guided by model answers and unaided free-writing. De Smet et al. (2011) found that outline
writing with Microsoft Word helped organize texts, but did not help with generating arguments.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

Overall, we believe that learning to write sound argumentative texts is complex. Rather than favoring one
specific method over another, we felt that a successful intervention required a careful mix of the various
methods. The main purpose of this study was therefore to develop a relatively simple blended learning
intervention that could improve the argumentative writing of secondary school students following the
English as a Second Language (ESL) stream. We then tested the effectiveness of this model using a quasi-
experimental design on Secondary 4 (10th grade) students (16- to 17-year-olds). We also added an
expanded intervention, gamification, in one of the experimental groups in order to determine if the use of
digital game mechanics could increase students’ online contribution and further improve their
argumentative writing. The present study was guided by the following specific questions:
1. Does a blended learning approach improve student argumentative writing compared to a teacher-
led direct-instruction approach?
2. Does a blended learning approach improve student argumentative writing compared to a blended
learning + gamification approach?
3. Does a blended learning + gamification approach improve student argumentative writing
compared to a control condition?
4. Does the application of gamification increase student online contribution?
5. How do students and teachers perceive the blended learning approach?

The Blended Learning Approach

Figure 1 illustrates the blended learning approach used in this study. The various blended learning
components were selected based on three main theoretical perspectives of L2 writing: text modeling,
process modeling, and social aspect (Barkaoui, 2007; Cumming, 2001). Text modeling aims to improve
L2 argumentative writing in terms of syntax, vocabulary, and organization (Barkaoui, 2007), while
process modeling focuses mainly on the strategies that underlie effective writing such as the process
model of the Toulmin argument model.
100 Language Learning & Technology

Figure 1. The blended learning model used in this study.

In this study, we facilitated text and process modeling through the use of writing samples and a writing
rubric. To further promote process modeling, as well as help students self-monitor and reflect on their
argumentative writing, we employed the thesis, analysis, and synthesis key (TASK) method. Central to
the social aspect is the assumption that students acquire argumentative literacy through student–teacher
and student–peer interaction (Newell, Beach, Smith, & VanDerHeide, 2011). Teacher and peer
interactions can help identify weaknesses in students’ contributions and foster students’ willingness to
engage in an argument (Smidt, 2002). In this study, we employed the use of online discussion through
Edmodo for students to interact with one another. We also utilized gamification in order to examine
whether it would motivate students to make more meaningful contributions in online discussions. Table 1
summarizes the main components incorporated in the blended learning approach. In the following
paragraphs, we describe each blended learning component in more detail.

Table 1. Summary of Blended Learning Components

Theoretical Perspective Description of Component

Process Modeling Use of questions in the TASK procedural strategy to guide students to plan,
write, and self-assess their arguments
Self-Monitoring Use of message labels to classify and tag their comments during online
discussion; these labels included claim, opposing claim, support, evidence,
rebuttal, and conclusion
Text Modeling Use of argumentative writing rubrics
Use of well- and poorly-written samples
Social Use of Edmodo as an online tool for peer and teacher feedback

Writing Samples and Rubric

We used two types of resources to facilitate text and process modeling of argumentation skills: samples of
well- and poorly-written essays and an argumentative writing rubric. The well- and poorly-written
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 101

argumentative texts were assessed according to the rubric of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary
Education (HKDSE) examination. The three main criteria were content, language use, and essay
organization. The quality of each sample, whether well-written or poorly-written, was determined by
mutual consent from at least two experienced markers of the HKDSE examination. Samples of well- and
poorly-written essays were presented so that students could acquire the syntax and lexicons, as well as
analyze the development of good versus poor writing—which we hoped would help them internalize what
to do and what not to do. Such activities help increase students’ awareness of stance-taking options and
make them more mindful of their own choices (Lancaster, 2011). A writing rubric (see Appendix A) was
shown because it reduced students’ anxiety toward writing (Wyngaard & Gehrlce, 1996) and showed
them how they could improve (Bergdahl, 1999).
TASK Method
In this study, we utilized the TASK method (Unrau, 1992) to scaffold the process modeling of writing
arguments, as well as foster students’ self-monitoring and self-correcting of writing. Self-monitoring and
self-correcting are important components of self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2013) because they involve the
learners’ internal processes of reflection. When self-regulatory mechanisms such as monitoring and
correcting are incorporated into writing, they generally produce better writings (Graham & Harris, 2000;
Graham & Perin, 2007). The eight stages outlined in the TASK method (see Appendix B) help students
explicitly consider and reflect on the different elements in argumentative writing.
According to Unrau (1992), TASK helps students to “recognize and challenge the claims and evidence
that constitute arguments, to search for good reasons to support both claims and counterclaims, to view
arguments from different perspectives, and to engage in a dialectical process while constructing texts” (p.
436). U.S. high-school students who used TASK attained significant improvements in their ability to
evaluate and write arguments (Unrau, 1989). More recently, Koh (2004) found a significant improvement
of Secondary 3 Singapore students’ performance in their overall argumentative writing scores as a result
of TASK.
Teacher and Peer Feedback Through Online Discussion
Although self-monitoring can help a learner reflect and make improvements upon the argumentative
writing process, external feedback still plays an important role (Lee, Cheung, Wong, & Lee, 2013).
Feedback helps point out errors and suggests areas for improvement. To facilitate peer and teacher
feedback both in and out of class, we used an online text-based asynchronous social medium, Edmodo.
The text-based nature of the online medium helped increase students’ awareness of grammar use. When
students discover grammatical mistakes in their posts, they tend either to revise them before posting the
messages or to make an extra post correcting their errors (Yamada, 2009). Edmodo was selected because
it looked similar to Facebook, a leading social network tool used by many students. However, unlike
Facebook, Edmodo promoted a more secure online environment for student interaction (see Kongchan,
2013).
In this study, we utilized both teacher and peer feedback via online interaction on Edmodo. A teacher’s
feedback was useful because it helped focus students’ discussion on the topic, prevent possible conflicts,
and provide pertinent information, while peer feedback allowed students to share their views more openly
(Hew, 2015). In order to further help students reflect on their own thoughts and consider the function and
purpose of their messages, each student was required to classify each message using certain labels: claim,
opposing claim, evidence, rebuttal, or conclusion (see Figure 1). The use of these labels also facilitated
dialogues, as teachers and peers could easily identify the purpose of their contributions by looking at the
labels (Hew & Cheung, 2014).
Gamification for Enhancing Student Engagement
Gamification refers to the application of digital game mechanics to non-game situations to motivate users’
behaviors (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). The rationale for using gamification was to
motivate students to conduct online discussions on the argumentative topic on Edmodo, which was
102 Language Learning & Technology

hypothesized to help students learn to think more argumentatively. More specifically, we hoped that the
use of gamification would encourage students to make meaningful contributions to the argumentative
writing topics. Meaningful contributions referred to stating one’s own perspective about a topic or making
posts supported by reason or evidence. We wanted to examine whether the use of gamification would
enhance students’ online contribution on Edmodo and their subsequent argumentative essay writing
performance.
In this study, we explored the use of points and leaderboards, since they were the most commonly
employed digital game mechanics (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015). Points can help stimulate
a person’s desire for reward, while a leaderboard can fulfills a person’s desire for competition while
catering to his or her need for achievement (Bunchball, 2010). Nevertheless, the sole use of points or
leaderboards could be frustrating to some students. Nicholson (2012) proposed that instructors focus on
play as a strategy to circumvent this problem. Role-play is a form of exploration-type play activity that
enables users to explore from different angles or perspectives (Bartle, 1996). Students can take up a role
in a context created by their teachers and they can explore and connect deeper with the issue at hand. In
this manner, students make their own choices as to what information to look at and what stance and
counter stance they take. With a role, students’ reflections are also maximized. In view of this, a simple
narrative was used in this study where the students took up a role in their discussion on Edmodo.

Method

A combination of quasi-experimental and qualitative research methods (i.e., interviews) was used. The
study was carried out in an all-girls’ school and involved three classes of Secondary 4 (Grade 10) students
(16–17 years old). The selection of the research site being an all girls’ school was a convenient sample.
We were able to gain access to the teacher who conducted this writing project. The teacher specialized in
teaching ESL to senior secondary level students (Grades 10 and 11). At the time of writing, the teacher
had two years of teaching experience, with the curriculum covering the teaching of writing, especially the
skill of argumentation.
According to the teacher, the biggest challenge the participants faced in their argumentative writing was
their ability to organize and formulate their argument, rather than their language proficiency. The
participants had the language proficiency necessary to express their thoughts. The secondary school they
were studying in used English as the medium of instruction (EMI), which meant they learned all subjects,
aside from the Chinese Language and Chinese history, in English. In Hong Kong, only 32% to 40% of
students are deemed suitable to learn in an EMI environment by the Education and Manpower Bureau
(2004). This is a recognition of the participants’ L2 English proficiency.
More specifically, in Secondary 1 and 2 (Grades 7 and 8), the participants were taught to write text types
such as stories and letters. In Secondary 3 (Grade 9), through direct instruction, the participants were
taught the basic organization of an argumentative writing, including paragraphing and the use of topic
sentences. As for selecting students of this particular educational level, we believed that students in
Secondary 4 (Grade 10) had sufficient grammar proficiency and some prerequisite ideas of the basic
organization of an argumentative essay.
The research design (see Appendix C) consisted of a pre- and post-test for all three groups. To find out
the effectiveness of the blended learning approach, the differences between the pre-test and post-test
scores of the three groups were compared. To find out whether students became more motivated when
gamification was applied, students’ contributions on Edmodo for the first and second experimental groups
were compared. To minimize confounding variables, the lessons were conducted by the same teacher, the
students were asked to work on the same writing topics, and the students took the same pre- and post-tests
across the groups.
Procedure
This study was conducted over a 7-week period because this was the only time available in the school
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 103

timetable. Although we would have preferred a longer time frame, the five weeks (not counting the first
and last weeks that were used for pre-test and post-test, respectively) seemed sufficient for the students to
complete all the necessary activities. Appendix D shows the argumentative topics addressed by the three
groups each week. The first phase of the study was a pre-test that was administrated to all three groups of
students. Students were given one hour to write an individual argumentative essay on the topic. The
second phase of the study consisted of argumentative writing lessons. In the post-test, the same procedure
as in the pre-test was carried out. Students were given one hour to write their essays. To avoid carry-over
test effect, the topic in the post-test was different from the pre-test but was of similar difficulty level.
Students wrote their pre- and post-test essays by hand on single-lined papers.
Control Group
The teacher in the control group provided direct instruction on argumentative writing. In the first lesson
after the pre-test, she went through the key components of argumentation (Appendix B, first column) and
then introduced the assessment rubric (Appendix A), which was provided to students to self-reflect and
improve their own work. The teacher in the control group also taught students to use the eight stages of
TASK strategy (Appendix B, second column). However, the students in the control group were not
provided any samples of well- and poorly-written arguments. Control group students also did not use
Edmodo or the message label. Students had 10 minutes to discuss the topic with their peers, followed by
an informal oral report. Afterward, students were asked to write on the topic individually.
Experimental Groups
Students in the first and second experimental groups were introduced to the blended learning approach
(see Figure 1). The relevant supports (i.e., the TASK strategy, assessment rubric, and message label
guidelines) were uploaded to Edmodo, where students could access them any time. During the first
lesson, students from the first and second experimental groups were reminded of the key components of
argumentative writing and introduced to the same assessment rubric for argumentative writing as the
control group.
In the subsequent lessons, the teacher commenced the face-to-face part of the lesson by showing students
some general good and bad examples of argumentative writing. Students analyzed and reported the
strengths and shortcomings of the examples. Next, the teacher posted the particular week’s argumentative
topic on Edmodo. Students then individually posted their thoughts. They also used the appropriate labels
(e.g., claim, opposing claim, or rebuttal) to tag their online posts. Subsequently, they were asked to
interact with others by leaving comments on their posts and tagging them with the correct labels. The
teacher also helped focus the students’ thinking by posing questions and comments based on the TASK
strategy. However, the teacher did not use the message labels. The whole purpose of the online interaction
exercise was to facilitate peer and teacher feedback on students’ thoughts about an argumentative topic.
After completion of the online discussion, students wrote their argumentative essays on the week’s topic
individually.
Experimental Group 1 additionally used digital game mechanics, whereas Experimental Group 2 did not.
First, a points-based system was used to motivate students to contribute their viewpoints and to support
them with evidence. For example, students were awarded one point when they contributed ideas relevant
to the topic using the correct message labels. Secondly, a leaderboard, which was essentially a high-score
table that ranked students according to the total points they earned, was shown and refreshed every two
weeks. To maximize play in the class, the topic of each lesson was given a specific context, with students
taking roles to develop their arguments. For example, in Week 5, for the topic of Putonghua should be
used as the medium of instruction for Chinese lessons in primary schools, students were given the roles of
parents, principals, teachers, students with good Putonghua, and students with poor Putonghua. They
were also told to imagine themselves at a meeting where they would cast their vote, voice their views and
try to convince each other to switch to their side.
In the last lesson, students completed their post-test. The same assessment rubric used to evaluate the pre-
test was used on the students’ post-test writings. To select the interview participants, students from the
104 Language Learning & Technology

two experimental groups were divided into three levels (i.e., high, medium, and low) according to their
results of their post-test. Then one student from each level was randomly chosen. This was to ensure that
students of stronger and weaker ability were interviewed. The interview took place within one week after
the post-test and each interview lasted around 15 minutes. The students were asked about their
perceptions of using Edmodo, TASK strategy and message labels, and digital game mechanics.

Data Analysis

The students’ pre- and post-test writings were first graded by the teacher using the rubric shown in
Appendix A. To determine the reliability of the grading, an independent marker was asked to grade 70%
of the students’ essays. The overall percentage agreement between the two markers was 86%. The results
of the pre-test were as follows: Experimental Group 1, blended learning + gamification (n = 22, M =
10.09, SD = 0.81); Experimental Group 2, blended learning (n = 30, M = 11.40, SD = 0.89); and Control
Group, teacher-led direct-instruction (n = 20, M = 10.55, SD = 1.10).
The length of the students’ pre-test essays were as follows: Experimental Group 1, blended learning +
gamification (M = 344.09, SD = 55.48); Experimental Group 2, blended learning (M = 417.40, SD =
87.91); and Control Group, teacher-led direct-instruction (M = 402.90, SD = 87.71). The length of the
students’ post-test essays were as follows: Experimental Group 1, blended learning + gamification (M =
373.45, SD = 72.10); Experimental Group 2, blended learning (M = 517.73, SD = 110.98); and Control
Group, teacher-led direct-instruction (M = 496.90, SD = 120.94).
To analyze the differences between the pre-test and post-test of the three groups, a series of ANCOVAs
were performed by excluding the effect of the students’ pre-test scores. The pre-test of the participants
was treated as a covariate because students’ prior ability could impact their subsequent writing
performance. We transcribed and translated the recording of the semi-structured interviews. The student
interview data were analyzed using the grounded approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) in relation to the
following elements: (a) students’ opinions of Edmodo, (b) students’ opinions of TASK strategy and
message labels, (c) students’ opinions of learning effectiveness using the blended learning approach, and
(d) students’ opinions of gamification. Specifically, for each element, students’ positive and negative
comments, as well as suggestions for improvements were noted down.
During the course of the research, we solicited the teacher’s comments about the study. We also obtained
her consent to participate in a face-to-face interview at the end of the study to clarify some of her
comments, and provide more in-depth explanations. The teacher’s comments were analyzed using the
grounded approach with regard to her views about the blended learning approach, gamification, and the
teacher-led direct-instruction method.

Results

RQ 1: Does a blended learning approach improve student argumentative writing

compared to a teacher-led direct-instruction approach?
The analysis of homogeneity of the regression coefficient showed that two groups had no difference in
envisioning antithesis (F(1, 48) = 0.54, p = .464), evaluating point of view (F(1, 48) = 2.05, p = .159),
providing rebuttals (F(1, 48) = 4.01, p = .051), or supporting conclusion (F(1, 48) = 0.00, p = .985). These
confirm the assumption of homogeneity. Only stating stance did not pass the homogeneity test. Following
that, analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to analyze the scores in the five post-tests.
For the dependent variable envisioning antithesis, the adjusted means of the blended learning and direct-
instruction groups were 2.66 and 1.91, respectively (see Appendix E). There was a significant difference
in the post-test scores between the two groups (F(1, 47) =14.21, p < .001, η2 = .23), showing a large effect
size. For the dependent variable providing rebuttals, the adjusted means of the blended learning and
direct-instruction groups were 2.76 and 1.96, respectively. The post-test scores of the two groups
achieved significance (F(1, 47) = 22.29, p < .001, η2 = .99), showing a large effect size. For evaluating point
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 105

of view and supporting conclusion, there were no significant differences in the post-test scores. We may
therefore conclude that students developed better skill in envisioning antithesis and providing rebuttals
with the blended learning approach.
RQ 2: Does a blended learning approach improve student argumentative writing
compared to a blended learning + gamification approach?
The analysis of homogeneity of the regression coefficient showed that two groups had no difference in
envisioning antithesis (F(1, 50) = 0.20, p = .653), evaluating point of view (F(1, 50) = 2.04, p = .159),
providing rebuttals (F(1, 50) = 10.92, p = .002), supporting conclusion (F(1, 50) = 0.20, p = .658), or total
score (F(1, 50) = 0.77, p = .358). These confirm the assumption of homogeneity. Only the stating stance
variable did not pass the homogeneity test. Following that, ANCOVAs were conducted to analyze the
scores in the five post-tests. There were no significant differences in the post-test scores for all variables
between the blended learning and blended learning + gamification groups (see Appendix F).
RQ 3: Does a blended learning + gamification approach improve student argumentative
writing compared to a control condition?
The analysis of homogeneity of the regression coefficient showed that two groups had no difference in
envisioning antithesis (F(1, 40) = 0.55, p = .462), evaluating point of view (F(1, 40) = 0.01, p = .933),
providing rebuttals (F(1, 40) = 0.00, p = .995), or supporting conclusion (F(1, 40) = 0.03, p = .862). These
confirm the assumption of homogeneity. Only stating stance did not pass the homogeneity test. Following
that, ANCOVAs were conducted to analyze the scores in the five post-tests.
For the dependent variable envisioning antithesis, the adjusted means of the gamification and direct-
instruction groups were 2.40 and 1.81, respectively (see Appendix G). There was a significant difference
in the post-test scores between the two groups (F(1, 39) = 5.23, p = .028, η2 = .12), showing a medium
effect size. For the dependent variable providing rebuttals, the adjusted means of the intervention and
control groups were 2.42 and 1.84, respectively. The post-test scores of the two groups reached a
significant level (F(1, 39) = 5.76, p = .021, η2 = .13), showing a medium effect size. For dependent
variables evaluating point of view and supporting conclusion, there were no significant differences in the
post-test scores. We concluded that students developed better skills in envisioning antithesis and
providing rebuttals with the blending learning + gamification approach.
RQ 4: Does the application of gamification increase student online contribution?
The students’ contributions over seven weeks in Edmodo were coded and categorized into three groups:
meaning contribution, meaning contribution with incorrect or missing message labels, and off-topic
contribution. To recall, meaningful contribution referred to contributions with ideas relevant to the topic,
such as stating one’s perspective with the use of appropriate message labels. Contributions with relevant
ideas but with missing or incorrect message labels were categorized separately. Off-topic contribution
referred to any comments students made that were irrelevant or expressions of agreement or disagreement
without support or giving new insights. To determine reliability, an independent marker was asked to
code the students’ contributions and an inter-scorer reliability of 86% was found.
One-way between subjects ANOVAs were conducted to compare the effect of gamification on levels of
contribution on Edmodo between the blended learning and blended learning + gamification groups.
Appendix H shows the means and standard deviations of student Edmodo contributions in each group.
There were significant effects of gamification on meaningful contribution (F(1, 50) = 22.64, p < .001) and
off-topic contribution (F(1, 50) = 16.88, p < 0.001). Our results therefore suggested that gamification helped
motivate students to post more ideas relevant to the topic and fewer off-topic comments. There was no
significant effect on relevant but mislabeled contributions (F(1, 50) = 2.02, p = 0.161).
RQ5: How do students and teachers perceive the blended learning approach?
Students’ Opinions of Edmodo
It was consistently found that all six interviewees preferred the use of Edmodo for online feedback over
106 Language Learning & Technology

face-to-face class feedback. The main reasons for this preference were that everyone could contribute at
the same time, that there was more flexibility of online participation in terms of time and place, and that
the environment was less stressful.
S4: When we discuss in class, the number of people actually involved in the discussion is limited.
Usually it is always the same people who do the sharing. The other students would just sit in their
seats and do not contribute … But in Edmodo, my classmates would post something they have found
from different sources and my horizons were broadened. … Through the online Edmodo, we can look
at it when we are at home.
Nevertheless, there were some students who were reluctant to respond to other people's posts. Some were
afraid of offending other people, while others felt that the discussion topics should have been more
controversial:
S6: I found it somewhat intimidating to reply others’ posts.
S3: To attract people to respond… the discussion topics can be something of greater controversy. If
we feel like arguing about it, we will be more likely to comment on what each other have said.
Students’ Opinions of the TASK Strategy and Message Labels
All six interviewees’ opinions on both the TASK strategy and the message labels were very positive.
They found the TASK strategy helpful in guiding them to think about the issue in a stepwise manner. The
message labels enhanced clarity for the readers of the posts, and also led them to consider the purpose of
the writing.
S1: [The TASK strategy] is useful. It helps me to analyze the issue and I can come up with more ideas
this way … [The message labels] help us to identity what we are looking at. It also guides us to think
about what to put in which part, to think about how to achieve what is required.
Students’ Overall Opinions of the Blended Learning Approach
All six interviews reported that they gained greater confidence in writing arguments through the blended
learning approach:
S1: I know better about how to write argumentative essays.
S2: I feel more confident overall … I have a better idea how to organize my writing.
S3: I think I don’t feel scared about writing argumentative essays like I did at the beginning … I know
how to go about writing arguments.
Students’ Opinions of Gamification
All three students found the points-based system motivating. All students also felt that the leaderboard
helped motivate online contribution. However, the leaderboard should have been made more conspicuous
according to Student 1. Student 1 also suggested the addition of a level system.
S1: The leaderboard needs to be more easily seen, be put somewhere obvious … I think there could
be a level system. Everyone likes going up higher levels.
S2: I checked the leaderboard. I could see that I am one of the students with the highest score. I
wanted to be at the top so I contributed even more on the forum.
S3: Having a leaderboard ignites your motivation. … As you see your name moving up the rank, you
feel happy and a sense of achievement.
Teacher’s Overall Opinions
Overall, the teacher felt that the blended learning model was effective in helping students write better
arguments. More specifically, the teacher found the use of message labels and writing samples to be
particularly useful:
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 107

Teacher: The message labels helped students to better clarify the components of their arguments. For
example, the use of “evidence” label forced students to consider and provide relevant support for
their claims, rather than base a claim on mere speculations. Message labels thus helped students
reflect more carefully on their own thoughts. … By analyzing the weaknesses and strengths of the
writing samples, students know what mistakes to avoid and how to structure their arguments better.
The blended learning model also encouraged participation and peer learning. Every student participated
online and read comments from classmates. The use of gamification such as points and leaderboards
helped students focus on the argumentative topic. Students in the non-gamified group posted more
irrelevant messages (e.g., Hello, I’m so beautiful today) as compared to their counterparts in the gamified
group. Although the use of gamification fostered more on-task discussion, it failed to improve students’
argumentative writing. According to the teacher, one possible reason is that students in the gamified
group posted mostly their own opinions about the argument instead of challenging or pointing out logical
fallacies in other people’s views. The latter activity is an important process of constructing a strong
argument in writing.
The teacher-led direct instruction allowed teachers to convey key ideas in a relatively short period of time
as compared to the other two groups (i.e., blended leaning and blended learning + gamification).
However, it failed to engage students to come up with their own ideas about the argumentative topics:
Teacher: Students tend to wait for my ideas in the teacher-led direct-instruction approach. They just
want to copy my answers in their writings.

Discussion

Three main research objectives guided this study. The first objective was to explore whether the use of a
blended learning approach (grounded in the social cognitive theory of self-regulation) could improve
Hong Kong ESL secondary school students’ argumentative writing. The second objective was to examine
whether the use of digital game mechanics could further improve students’ writing and increase their
online contribution. The third objective was to explore the students’ and teacher’s perceptions toward the
blended learning approach and the use of digital game mechanics.
A significant improvement in terms of student writing was found between the blended learning group and
the control group. A significant improvement was also found between the blended learning + gamification
group and the control group. These results suggested that the blended learning approach was more
effective in teaching argumentative essay writing as compared to a teacher-led direct-instruction method.
Specifically, we found that the blended learning approach improved students’ ability to envision antithesis
and provide rebuttals more than other argumentative components.
In addition, we wish to highlight the following observation. The students in both the blended learning and
control groups did a fair amount of additional writing in the post-tests compared to the pre-tests, while
students in the blended learning + gamification group only increased a small amount in this regard.
Although the results showed an increase in the blended learning and control groups’ post-test essays in
terms of mean word count, there was overall no significant difference among the three groups in terms of
the length word gain of essays per se (F(2,69) = 2.95, p = .059).
We also observed that while students in the control group had written longer post-test essays compared to
students in the blended learning + gamification group, the quality of the argumentative essays in the latter
was significantly higher than the control group. Although inconclusive at this moment, the above result
seems to suggest that higher scores of student argumentative essays (i.e., quality of writing) may not be
influenced by the word count.
Students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the blended learning approach supported the results of the
quantitative study. All six interviewees expressed their preferences for online feedback through Edmodo
over face-to-face discussion. They found peer interaction and feedback more effective when the
discussion was done online because they could read the posts and respond to their peers without
108 Language Learning & Technology

constraints of time and space. The TASK strategy and the use of message labels were also reported to be
helpful. Specifically, the TASK strategy guided students to think logically, while the message labels
helped enhance students’ awareness of the nature of their contributions. The use of message labels forced
students to reflect prior to making their contributions (Koh, 2004). This probably led to the improvement
in students’ skills on more difficult tasks such as the provision of rebuttals (Koh, 2004).
The use of game mechanics motivated students to post significantly more messages on Edmodo. All three
students in the blended learning + gamification group reported that the points system was motivating,
while some students were particularly encouraged by their rank on the leaderboard. There are two
plausible explanations for this. First, the use of game mechanics gives explicit goals for participants to
aspire to (Kumar & Herger, 2013). According to goal setting theory, students’ motivation can be
promoted when the goals are specific and moderately challenging (Locke & Latham, 1990). In the
blended learning + gamification group, students were given one point for every meaningful contribution
posted. Meaningful contributions, as previously mentioned, referred to stating one’s own perspective
about the topic, or making posts supported by reasons or evidence. According to Jung, Schneider, and
Valacich (2010), when users were given a clear goal, their engagement increased in contrast to
individuals who were told to simply do their best or who were not given an explicit goal.
Second, using a leaderboard showed users where their performance stood in regard to other users.
According to social comparison theory, human beings like to evaluate their abilities by comparing with
those of others (Festinger, 1954). Therefore, using a leaderboard catered to the competitive nature of
human beings, which prompted participants to generate more posts.
Unfortunately, our use of gamification failed to significantly improve students’ argumentative writing.
We found no significant differences in students’ argumentative post-test scores between Experimental
Group 1 (blended learning + gamification) and Experimental Group 2 (blended learning). As earlier
mentioned, the teacher found that students in the blended learning + gamification group mostly explained
their own opinions about the topic rather than challenging other people’s views. There are two reasons for
this. First, not all students were confident enough to put forward opposing views because they were either
afraid of offending other people or worried that their views might not be convincing enough. Second, in
retrospect, we realized that the use of gamification in the present study mainly focused on the skill of
explanation using evidences. Fostering students’ logical thinking could be fundamental in improving
students’ argumentative writing skills. By logical thinking, we mean the ability to make valid inferences
(Jaakko & Sandu, 2006). In writing argumentative essays, any evidence offered to support or rebut a
stance or view should be logical. For example, if the temperature in cup A was higher than in cup B and if
the temperature in cup B was higher than cup C, then by logical reasoning, the temperature in cup A must
be higher than in cup C. Instead of rewarding students for merely explaining their views, extra points
could have been given to students who pointed out a logical fallacy in someone’s views. Future research
can be conducted to determine if using such a scheme would help improve students’ arguments.

Conclusion

Overall, the result of this study recommends the use of a blended learning approach over a teacher-led
direct-instruction approach for teaching argumentative writing. The success of the blended learning
approach depends largely on several factors that worked together, including text and process modeling of
how to write arguments (e.g., well- and poorly-written essays, rubrics), students’ self-monitoring and
judgment of the argumentation procedure (e.g., TASK method, message labels), and feedback from the
teacher and peers. In the teacher’s opinion, the use of message labels and writing samples were
particularly useful because they specifically enhanced students’ self-monitoring and self-correction of
writing. When self-monitoring and self-correction are incorporated into writing, they tend to produce
better essays (Graham & Perin, 2007).
The blended learning approach can be improved in the following ways. First, to help students feel more
relaxed about expressing their views, it would be a good idea to assign online anonymity to them.
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 109

Students tend to contribute more critical posts, such as posts supported by evidence, when there is author
anonymity than when compared to an author-identity-revealed condition (Cheung, Hew, & Foo, 2009).
One legitimate concern about using online anonymity is the possible occurrence of aggressive student
behavior, such as flaming (Bertera & Littlefield, 2003). However, incidences of malicious behavior occur
much less frequently in an institutional course-related discussion than in public online forums because
students know that they are anonymous only to their peers and not to the teacher. This motivates students
to be responsible in their posting of comments. Second, in order to promote peer feedback about the
argumentative topic, teachers could divide the whole class into smaller online groups of about 10 students
each. Previous research has suggested that groups of 10 students help maximize online interactions
among participants (Hew & Cheung, 2012). Too large a group (e.g., 20 or more) encourages the problem
of lurking, while smaller groups tend to run out of ideas quickly.
Although the present study has provided a useful snapshot of the impact of gamification and a blended
learning approach on student writing performance and online posting, the findings should be viewed with
caution. One limitation was the small sample sizes of our three classes. Another limitation was that we
sampled only female Hong Kong students as the study was conducted in a girl’s school. Hence, the results
of this study should not be generalized to other contexts. In the future, we intend to extend both the
duration and sample size of the participants. As an example, we would investigate the effects of game
mechanics over a longer period of time, preferably over six months, to see if the motivational effect of
points or leaderboards holds or wears off. We could also examine how blended learning + gamification
affects male students, as well as students in other subject disciplines, such as mathematics or the sciences.

References

Arsyad, S. (1999). The Indonesian and English argument structure: A cross-cultural rhetoric of
argumentative texts. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 85–102.
Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 9, 229–241.
Barkaoui, K. (2007). Teaching writing to second language learners: Insights from theory and research.
TESL Reporter, 40(1), 35–48.
Bartle, R. A. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD
Research, 1, 1–19.
Bergdahl, D. (1999). Scoring guides in the process-oriented composition class: Having students write
their own scoring guides. Exercise Exchange, 45, 21–24.
Bertera, E. M., & Littlefield, M. B. (2003). Evaluation of electronic discussion forums in social work
diversity education: A comparison of anonymous and identified participation. Journal of Technology
in Human Services, 21(4), 53–71.
Bunchball. (2010). Gamification 101: An introduction to the use of game dynamics to influence behavior.
Retrieved from http://jndglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/gamification1011.pdf
Cheung, W. S., Hew, K. F., & Foo, A. (2009). Examining the impact of object owners’ anonymity on
learners’ participation rate and critical thinking in an asynchronous online discussion environment. In
L. Cameron & J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International LAMS and Learning Design
Conference (pp. 48–53). Sydney, Australia: LAMS Foundation.
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and
problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.
Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse.
Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348–359.
110 Language Learning & Technology

Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International
Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23.
De Smet, M. J. R., Broekkamp, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Effects of electronic
outlining on students’ argumentative writing performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
27, 557–574.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness:
Defining gamification. In A. Lugmayr, H. Franssila, C. Safran, & I. Hammouda (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning future media environments
(pp. 9–15). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic
mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 1–14.
Education and Manpower Bureau (2004). Legislative council brief. Public consultation on the review of
medium of instruction for secondary schools and secondary school places allocation. Retrieved from
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/english/panels/ed/papers/emb_ec_101_55_1_c_e.pdf
El-Henawy, W. M., Dadour, E.-S. M., Salem, M. M., & El-Bassuony, J. M. (2012). The effectiveness of
using self-regulation strategies on developing argumentative writing of EFL prospective teachers.
Journal of the Egyptian Association for Reading and Knowledge, 27(1), 1–28.
Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1994). Holistic critical thinking scoring rubric. Retrieved from
https://www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Teaching-Training-and-Learning-Tools/Holistic-
Critical-Thinking-Scoring-Rubric-HCTSR
Felton, M., Crowell, A., & Liu, T. (2015). Arguing to agree: Mitigating my-side bias through consensus-
seeking dialogue. Written Communication, 32(3), 317–331.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and
writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with
learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
Greenlaw, S. A., & DeLoach, S. B. (2003). Teaching critical thinking with electronic discussion. The
Journal of Economic Education, 34(1), 36–52.
Hew, K. F. (2015). Student perceptions of peer versus instructor facilitation of asynchronous online
discussions: Further findings from three cases. Instructional Science, 43(1), 19–38.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions,
and future research. New York, NY: Springer.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Using blended learning: Evidence-based practice. Singapore:
Springer.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese
EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181–209.
Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. (2002). Critical thinking and communication. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Jaakko, H., & Sandu, G. (2006). What is logic? In J. Dale (Ed.), Philosophy of logic handbook of the
philosophy of science (pp. 13–39). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 111

Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and
guidelines. Education Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.
Jonassen, D. H., Shen, D., Marra, R. M., Cho, Y.-H., Lo, J. L., & Lohani, V. K. (2009). Engaging and
supporting problem solving in engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 235–254.
Jung, J., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing the motivational affordance of information
systems: The effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration
environments. Management Science, 56(4), 724–742.
Knudson, R. E. (1992). Analysis of argumentative writing at two grade levels. Journal of Educational
Research, 85(3), 169–179.
Knudson, R. E. (1994). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. Discourse
Processes, 18, 211–230.
Koh, Y. C. (2004). The impact of scaffolding via online asynchronous discussions on students’ thinking
skills in writing argumentative essays. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore.
Kongchan, C. (2013). How Edmodo and Google Docs can change traditional classrooms. Retrieved from
http://docplayer.net/10565983-How-edmodo-and-google-docs-can-change-traditional-classrooms-
chada-kongchan-king-mongkut-s-university-of-technology-thonburi-thailand.html
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, J. M., & Herger, M. (2013). Gamification at work: Designing engaging business software.
Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation.
Lancaster, Z. (2011). Interpersonal stance in L1 and L2 students’ argumentative writing in economics:
implications for faculty development in WAC/WID programs. Across the Disciplines, 8(4). Retrieved
from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/lancaster.cfm
Lee, C., Cheung, W. K. W., Wong, K. C. K., & Lee, F. S. L. (2013). Immediate web-based essay
critiquing system feedback and teacher follow-up feedback on young second language learners’
writings: An experimental study in a Hong Kong secondary school. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 26(1), 39–60.
Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in
argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45, 117–128.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lukomskaya, L. (2015). Using mentor texts to teach argumentative writing through writing conferences.
(Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Education and human development master’s theses. (No. 553)
Murphy, D. (1987). Offshore education: A Hong Kong perspective. Australian Universities Review,
30(2), 43–44.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student
texts. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 6(2), article 1. Retrieved from http://tesl-
ej.org/ej22/a1.html
Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative
reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centred theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. Paper presented
at Games, Learning, & Society 8.0, Madison, WI.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of
counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169.
112 Language Learning & Technology

Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument–counterargument integration in students’

writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic
review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication
yearbook (Vol. 22, pp. 209–249). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university
argumentative writing. System, 38(3), 444–456.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L.-J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The
Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.
Rusfandi. (2015). Argument–counterargument structure in Indonesian EFL learners’ English
argumentative essays: A dialogic concept of writing. RELC Journal, 46(2), 181–197.
Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R. L., & Gass, R. H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical
thinking? Communication Reports, 7(1), 27–35.
Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A
review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,
5(1), 43–102.
Smidt, J. (2002). Double histories in multivocal classrooms: Notes toward an ecological account of
writing. Written Communication, 19(3), 414–443.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning
task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851–860.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1990). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Macmillan.
Unrau, N. J. (1989). The TASK of reading and writing: A study of the effects of a procedural facilitator on
the construction of arguments. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Unrau, N. J. (1992). The TASK of reading (and writing) arguments: A guide to building critical literacy.
Journal of Reading, 35(6), 436–442.
Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking &
Reasoning, 14, 1–27.
Wyngaard, S., & Gehrlce, R. (1996). Responding to audience: Using rubrics to teach and assess writing.
English Journal, 85, 67–70.
Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centred communicative language learning
using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers and
Education, 52(4), 820–833.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path.
Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147.
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 113

Appendix A. Assessment Rubric for Argumentative Writing

Key Components of Assessment Indicator

Argumentative Writing
Stating stance and 4 – Makes assertions with explicit evidence
provide evidence for 3 – Makes assertions based on superficial evidence
one’s own thesis 2 – Takes a side but make assertion without supporting evidence
1 – No clear stance
Envisioning anti-thesis 4 – States major alternative points of view with explicit evidence
and their support 3 – States alternative points of view with superficial evidence
2 – States obvious alternative points of view without evidence
1 – Ignores alternative points of view

Evaluating points of 4 – Evaluates major points of view, supports and questionable inferences
view, supports and 3 – Evaluates alternative points of view, supports and/or questionable
questionable inferences inferences
2 – Evaluates obvious points of view, supports or questionable inferences
superficially
1 – No evaluation of points of view, supports or questionable inferences
Providing rebuttals 4 – Provides salient rebuttals
3 – Provides relevant rebuttals
2 – Fails to identify strong, relevant rebuttals
1 – Fails to provide relevant rebuttals
Supporting conclusion 4 – Defends conclusion using salient supports from both thesis and anti-
using both thesis and anti- thesis
thesis 3 – Defends conclusion using relevant supports from thesis or anti-thesis
2 – Defends conclusion using superficial supports
1 – Fails to provide supports to defend conclusion
Note. This rubric is adapted from several sources, including the taxonomy for critical thinking by Greenlaw and
DeLoach (2003), the holistic critical thinking scoring rubric by Facione and Facione (1994), Kuhn’s (1991)
components of an argument, and the skills for a sound argument by Toulmin et al. (1990).
114 Language Learning & Technology

Appendix B. TASK Strategies With Corresponding Message Labels

Key Components of TASK Strategy Message Labels

Argumentative Writing
Stating stance and Stage 1: What is the topic being judged? claim, opposing
provide evidence for Stage 2: What basic claim is made about the topic? claim, evidence
one’s own thesis Stage 4: What supports the basic claim?
Envisioning anti-thesis Stage 3: Antithesis – if a reader is against the writer’s claim, opposing
and their support claim about the topic, what would be his basic stance? claim, evidence
Stage 4: What supports the antithetical claim?

Evaluating points of Stage 5: Are there any unclear words in the piece? evidence,
view, supports and Stage 6: What are some of the questionable inferences, rebuttal,
questionable inferences; irrelevant supports, fallacies, or other weaknesses in the conclusion
providing rebuttals arguments?
Stage 7: What are the assumptions or ideological
influences in the basic thesis or its supports? Do any of
them shake the validity of the claim?
Supporting conclusion Stage 8: State the full thesis in the following form: conclusion
using both thesis and anti- “Although (the antithesis or one of its strongest
thesis supports)…, (the basic claim)… because C (a major
cause for belief in the basic claim)…”
Note. These strategies are adapted from Koh, 2004 and Unrau, 1992.
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 115

Appendix C. Research Design

Week Control Group Experimental Group 1 Experimental Group 2

1 Pre-test Pre-test Pre-test
2–6 Students were introduced to Students were introduced to Students were introduced to
(a) the five key components of (a) the five key components of (a) the five key components of
argumentation, (b) the argumentation, (b) the argumentation, (b) the
assessment rubric, and (c) the assessment rubric, and (c) the assessment rubric, and (c) the
TASK strategy. TASK strategy. TASK strategy.
In each session, students were In each session, students were In each session, students were
(1) given an argumentative (1) provided with well- and (1) provided with well- and
topic, (2) given 10 minutes to poorly-written samples of poorly-written samples of
orally discuss the topic with arguments, (2) asked to orally arguments, (2) asked to orally
their peers, (3) asked to do an discuss the strengths and discuss the strengths and
informal oral report, and (4) weaknesses of the well- and weaknesses of the well- and
asked to write an poorly-written samples, (3) poorly-written samples, (3)
argumentative writing on the given an argumentative topic, given an argumentative topic,
topic individually. (4) asked to discuss the topic (4) asked to discuss the topic
on Edmodo with the use of on Edmodo with the use of
message labels, (5) provided message labels, (5) provided
with feedback from teachers with feedback from teachers
on Edmodo, and (6) asked to on Edmodo, and (6) asked to
write an argumentative writing write an argumentative writing
on the topic individually. on the topic individually.
There was also an application
of digital game mechanics.
The teacher gave students a
context and a role when
introducing the argumentative
topic. When students
interacted with each other on
the discussion forum, their
participation was counted in a
point-based system where
active and meaningful
participation was rewarded.
7 Post-test Post-test Post-test
8 Semi-structured interviews Semi-structured interviews
were conducted were conducted
116 Language Learning & Technology

Appendix D. Argumentative Writing Topics

Week Writing Topic

Week 1 pre-test Many teachers incorporate songs into their lessons as they think it has various
educational benefits. However, some parents oppose this as they think it is a waste of
time. Write an article giving your opinions on the matter.
Week 2 session All lives are equal.
Week 3 session The third runway should be built in Hong Kong
Week 4 session Kids are essential to a family.
Week 5 session Putonghua should be used as the medium of instruction for Chinese lessons in primary
schools.
Week 6 session The sale of human organs should be legalized.
Week 7 post-test In Hong Kong, many families have full-time working parents. Some people think it is
undesirable if both parents work since it means kids are close to their maids, private
tutors, and piano teachers, rather than their own parents. Others argue that it is not a
big problem since parents need to find cash to make ends meet. Write an article for
your school magazine giving your opinions.

Appendix E. Descriptive Data and ANCOVA Results of the Post-Tests Between

the Blended Learning and Control Groups

Variable Group N M SD Adjusted Mean SE F η2

Envisioning Blended 30 2.63 0.67 2.66 0.12 14.21** .23
antithesis Control 20 1.95 0.69 1.91 0.15
Evaluating Blended 30 3.20 0.71 3.13 0.13 2.47 .05
point of view Control 20 2.70 0.86 2.80 0.16
Providing Blended 30 2.77 0.43 2.76 0.11 22.29*** .99
rebuttals Control 20 1.95 0.76 1.96 0.14
Supporting Blended 30 2.13 0.43 2.13 0.09 1.71 .035
conclusion Control 20 1.95 0.51 1.95 0.11
**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Yau Wai Lam, Khe Foon Hew, and Kin Fung Chiu 117

Appendix F. Descriptive Data and ANCOVA Results of the Post-Tests Between the
Blended Learning and Blended Learning + Gamification Groups

Variable Group N M SD Adjusted Mean SE F η2

Envisioning Blended + gamification 22 2.27 0.77 2.40 0.15 0.52 .01
antithesis Blended 30 2.63 0.67 2.55 0.13
Evaluating Blended + gamification 22 3.18 0.80 3.22 0.15 0.07 .00
point of view Blended 30 3.20 0.71 3.17 0.13
Providing Blended + gamification 22 2.32 0.78 2.42 0.14 1.98 .04
rebuttals Blended 30 2.77 0.43 2.70 0.11
Supporting Blended + gamification 22 1.91 0.53 2.01 0.09 0.14 .00
conclusion Blended 30 2.13 0.43 2.06 0.08

Appendix G. Descriptive Data and ANCOVA Results of the Post-Tests Between

the Blended Learning + Gamification and Control Groups

Variable Group N M SD Adjusted Mean SE F η2

Envisioning Blended + gamification 22 2.27 0.77 2.40 0.17 5.23* 0.12
antithesis Control 20 1.95 0.69 1.81 0.17
Evaluating Blended + gamification 22 3.18 0.80 3.15 0.17 2.80 0.07
point of view Control 20 2.70 0.86 2.74 0.18
Providing Blended + gamification 22 2.32 0.78 2.42 0.16 5.76* 0.13
rebuttals Control 20 1.95 0.76 1.84 0.17
Supporting Blended + gamification 22 1.91 0.53 1.92 0.11 0.01 0.000
conclusion Control 20 1.95 0.51 1.94 0.12
*p < 0.05

Appendix H. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Student Online

Contribution

Types of Score
Contribution Condition M SD
Edmodo_M Blended learning + gamification*** 3.82 1.59
Blended learning only 1.87 1.36
Edmodo_C Blended learning + gamification 0.23 0.53
Blended learning only 0.50 0.78
Edmodo_O Blended learning + gamification*** 0.14 0.47
Blended learning only 2.00 2.08
Note. Edmodo_M refers to meaningful contribution with correct message labels, Edmodo_C refers to meaningful
contribution with incorrect or missing message labels, and Edmodo_O refers to off-topic contributions.
***p < 0.01
118 Language Learning & Technology

About the Authors

Miss Lam Yau Wai is a full-time secondary school teacher in Hong Kong and a part-time student
pursuing a Doctorate of Education degree at the University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include
instructional design and e-learning.
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Hew, Khe Foon is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education (Division of Information and
Technology Studies) at the University of Hong Kong. His research interests consist of online pedagogy,
instructional design, and e-learning.
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Chiu, Kin Fung is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education (Division of Information and Technology
Studies) at the University of Hong Kong. He is interested in multimedia learning, cognitive learning, and
social cognitive learning.
E-mail: [email protected]