Analysis of argumentative texts prepared by chilean students of pedagogy

Abstract

Within the framework of academic discourse, this research contributes to the study of argumentation as a discursive genre and a modality of thought widely used in the discursive practices of higher education students. The aim of the study is to analyse the pragmatic-dialogical and discursive-textual dimensions of argumentative writings produced by Chilean students of the first year of Pedagogy. The global coherence was reviewed by relating the theses with the arguments proposed and considering the use of prototypical connectors of this discursive modality. The corpus, made up of 217 texts of first-year students, was analysed quantitatively using the free software Antconc to determine the frequency of use of prototypical features. Subsequently, a random selection of the corpus was analysed in terms of its discursive and pragmatic assessment of use. The results describe the textual options, the structure, types of arguments and the pragmatic relevance of the texts, giving account of the most widespread anomalous practices revealing flaws in writing for argumentative purposes. It is considered that an argumentation-focussed approach to academic discourse written by future educators contributes in a systematic and transversal way to their training, which is not only relevant to improve the quality of their written communications, but is valuable in that it collaborates with the development of critical thinking skills, considered central to the learning of scientific disciplines (ARCHILA, 2012) and teaching (DOMINGO, GOMEZ, 2014).