Merging Oral and Written Argumentation: Supporting Student Writing Through Debate and SRSD in Inclusive Classrooms

Abstract

Argumentation is a key competence (as emphasized by the European Union) for lifelong learning and democratic participation. Written argumentation is a challenging task for students, and to date, no study has investigated the impact of a combined teaching approach of debating and SRSD writing lessons on written argumentation skills. This study addresses this gap by linking debating and SRSD writing lessons for the first time in grade 9 classrooms, employing a debating format and the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) approach. We aimed to assess the impact of the combination of debating and SRSD writing lessons on the quality of students’ argumentative writing, examining text quality across school types (higher and lower academic track) and intervention sequences (debating–SRSD and SRSD–debating). This quasi-experimental study included 357 ninth-grade students from six rural and urban German schools, split between higher (57.9%) and lower (42.1%) academic tracks. Over four measurement points, the students participated in randomized debating or SRSD-based writing lessons, each comprising six 90-minute sessions conducted by trained coaches from the research team. Text quality was measured through standardized writing tasks and the double-blinded rating of text and language pragmatics quality on a six-point scale. Both interventions improved text quality, with significant gains observed in the post-tests, and gains were especially visible for lower-track students. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of linking debating and SRSD writing lessons in improving writing skills. Our findings support the inclusion of debating as a motivational precursor to writing, emphasizing adaptability in teaching strategies to accommodate diverse student needs. We recommend confirming these findings and informing broader curricular reforms in further research.