This study investigates the effects of collaborative e-learning environment supported by peer feedback and argumentative instruction on students’ argumentative writing, argumentative feedback and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of educational sciences. The population of the study was all bachelor students of educational sciences at Kharazmi University in Karaj in which 36 students were randomly selected as a sample and were assigned to either experimental (with instruction) or control group (without instruction) in a pre-and posttest design. They were then divided over 18 dyads and were asked to write and argumentative essay, engage in argumentative peer feedback with their learning partner, and then revise their essay based on feedback they received. To do so, a collaborative e-learning environment was designed and developed. A coding scheme was developed based on research literature to measure both argumentative essay and argumentative peer feedback quality. The results favoured students in the experimental condition in terms of their argumentative essay writing, argumentative peer feedback quality, and the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge. Implications, limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Drawing mainly on Hyland's (2005) "interpersonal model of metadiscourse", the researchers in the current study strived to probe the viable impact of consciousness-raising regarding metadiscourse (MD) markers on Iranian EFL learners' academic writing performance. To this end, 75 university junior students were assigned to three separate groups (two experimental and one control, based on random assignment) and exposed to three different kinds of treatment. While the control group participants followed their normal course of instruction, learners in the explicit instruction group (the first experimental group) were provided with overt guidelines regarding the uses of metadiscourse markers through active involvement with MD-marker detection drills, and the participants in the second experimental group (the implicit instruction group) were just given hints, in a tacit manner, concerning the points at which MD markers occurred within the text (this was done through mere noticing procedure via highlighted text). It is also worth noting that an excerpt from IELTS argumentative writing tasks was used for pre and post testing purposes, and a random selection from the introduction and discussion sections of recently-published articles in peer-reviewed educational and teaching journals was utilized as the treatment material. The final analysis of data through one-way ANOVA and ANCOVA revealed significant differences in the writing performance of three groups of learners involved in the experiment.

The studies on L2 argumentative writing have surveyed different dimensions of learners’ argumentative behavior and performance. However, less attention has been given to the strategies and techniques enhancing students’ argumentative repertoire. As such, the current study, which the design was repeated measures ANOVA, taking a pedagogy-based perspective, examined the argumentative writing behavior, introduced by Toulmin as Toulmin’s model, of 30 Iranian IELTS candidates before, during and after the instruction in both English and Persian languages. The sample questions were of the previous IELTS Writing part 2 essays from a real test by Cambridge University Press, chosen by 3 IELTS instructors in the Institute to meet the research objectives. To this end, 180 IELTS Task 2 argumentative essays were written by 30 volunteers, each having to write 6 essays, at least 250 words, (Persian and English). As for the students’ English and Persian argumentative writing performance, the results indicated that there were significant differences between the EFL learners’ overall means on argumentative tests in both languages. The results demonstrate that a sound pedagogy in argumentation can both influence the use of argumentation elements in both English and Persian written texts. The pedagogical implications for writing instruction and argumentative writing are discussed.

In this paper one of the main forms of textualization will be represented; little known, in our opinion, first by foreign language specialists (linguists or literary) in Iran and marginalized, even absent, from the educational applications in language and literature courses in the Iranian universities.After an overview of the types of texts, we will try to develop the idea that concerns us here, namely the study of argumentative type in two ways: firstly the epistemological concept of argumentation and then the organization of the argumentative text. French: Le texte argumentatif et la typologie de textesResume Cet article aura comme but de representer l’une des formes principales de textualisation, peu connue, a notre avis, d’abord par les specialistes des langues etrangeres (linguiste ou litteraire) en Iran et marginalisee, et meme absente, par consequent, des applications pedagogiques dans les cours de langue et litterature au milieu universitaire iranien.Apres un apercu general de la typologie des textes, nous avons essaye de mettre au point l’idee qui nous preoccupe ici, a savoir l’etude du type argumentatif sur deux plans: d’abord plan epistemologique de la notion d’argumentation et ensuite plan organisationnel du texte argumentatif.keywords: Typologie de Textes, Argumentation, Discours Argumentatif, Organisation de Texte, Categories de la Langue

The advent of ChatGPT, an all-purpose intelligent Chabot created by Open AI, has created a multitude of prospects and opportunities within the realm of language education. Owing to its exceptional capacity to produce a wide range of textual outputs, ChatGPT responds to queries in a matter of seconds. The present study aimed to examine the appropriateness of ChatGPT-based instruction and flipped language learning instruction (FLLI) in classrooms in terms of enhancing EFL learners’ interactional metadiscourse realization across language proficiency levels. Sixty-three English language learners were divided into four distinct groups: 16 in the advanced and 16 in the intermediate FLLI group, 15 in the advanced, and 16 in the intermediate ChatGPT group. Before initiating the study, all participants were given a pretest that specifically assessed the use of interactional metadiscourse markers (IMMs) in argumentative writing. The four experimental groups were separately exposed to ChatGPT-based instruction and FLLI during eight sessions. Results from a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure through SPSS (version 25) revealed that the ChatGPT-based instruction was more effective than FLLI, and both intermediate and advanced language learners following the ChatGPT-based instruction used IMMs in argumentative writing more successfully. Moreover, the participants’ perceptions of ChatGPT and FLLI were analyzed through MAXQDA (version 2020), showing more positive attitudes towards using ChatGPT in language learning in general and IM realization in particular. The findings have the potential to provide advantages for teacher educators in terms of utilizing ChatGPT learning approaches.

The studies on L2 argumentative writing have surveyed different dimensions of learners’ argumentative behavior and performance. However, less attention has been given to the strategies and techniques enhancing students’ argumentative repertoire. As such, the current study, taking a pedagogy-based perspective, examined the argumentative writing behavior of 30 Iranian IELTS candidates before and after the instruction in both English and Persian languages. The sample questions were of the previous IELTS Writing part 2 essays from a real test by Cambridge University Press, chosen by 3 IELTS instructors in the Institute to meet the research objectives. To this end, 180 IELTS Task 2 argumentative essays were analyzed by 30 volunteers, each having 6 essays, at least 250 words, (Persian and English). As for the students’ English and Persian argumentative writing performance, the results indicated that there were significant differences between the EFL learners’ overall means on English argumentative tests. Furthermore, the candidates chiefly applied ‘data’ and ‘claim’ most frequently in both languages with secondary elements of argument (i.e., counterargument claim, counterargument data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data) as the least produced elements detected in the essays. The results demonstrate that a sound pedagogy in argumentation can both influence the use of argumentation elements in both English and Persian written texts. The pedagogical implications for writing instruction and argumentative writing are discussed.

The study on second language (L2) argumentative writing has explored various surfaces and dimensions of learner behavior and presentation, although fewer studies have studied effective pedagogical strategies to boost students’ argumentative skills. The current study mentions the gap by exploring the effect of explicit argumentative instruction on the writing abilities of 30 Iranian IELTS candidates, according to CEFR ranging from B1 to B2, in an English Language Institute in Karaj - Iran in both Persian and English, the former their native language and the latter their foreign language . As a set of authentic IELTS Task 2 prompts were used and taken from the language learners, the study analyzed 180 argumentative essays, both in English and Persian, written by the participants prior, while and after instruction. The outcomes had shown noteworthy enhancement in the students’ English argumentative performance, with the recurrent use of argumentation key elements such as ‘claim’, ‘data’, and the ‘counterarguments’. Though, less emphasis was put on advanced argumentative structures such as ‘counterclaims’ and ‘rebuttals’. The results suggest that structured pedagogy in  teaching argumentation can positively influence learners’ proficiency in both first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing. The insinuations for teaching argumentative writing in multilingual contexts will be further discussed.

The rhetorical technique of “Adaptation” refers to the process of taking the sacred word [divine word/the words of religious leaders] and applying it to the speech of humans. This technique, like many other innovative techniques, is generally considered a decorative tool due to the dominance of the ornamental approach over novel science and its other functions have been neglected. The present study has tried to distance itself from this approach in a descriptive-analytical way both theoretically and practically. In this regard, on the one hand, by designing and examining the ideas of rhetoricians regarding the technique of adaptation, and on the other hand, by presenting and analyzing several examples from both the Arabic and Persian languages, it has tried to highlight the argumentative-persuasive function of this technique. Furthermore, based on one of the arguments presented by Perleman and Tyteca titled “argument from authority”, a model of the function of the technique of adaptation is presented. The conclusion of the discussion is that the speaker, based on this model, uses the sacred texts as an argument, proof, and a valid reason to confirm and prove his claim, and through it, he convinces his believing addressees. Introduction Adaptation technique is one of the rhetorical techniques included in the textbooks of Islamic rhetoric under rhetorical science with the aim of teaching the methods of beautification of speech, a beauty which, unlike the beauty resulting from the other two rhetorical sciences, semantics and utterance, is temporary and not inherent. Of course, such a belief does not assign a place to rhetorical science in the semantic processes of speech and lowers the status of rhetorical techniques to the level of a decorative tool that can be removed at any moment, without creating the slightest defect in the speech. Materials and Methods The current research is based on the descriptive-analytical method and is based on library sources. In order to provide a clear picture of the argumentative-persuasive function of the technique of adaptation, it has paid attention to one of the contemporary linguistic-cognitive theories under the title of ‘argumentation’ and based on one of its argumentative techniques, the exploration of what and how this type of adaptation works has been discussed. Finally, while examining examples of this rhetorical technique in both Arabic and Persian languages, a model of its argumentative-persuasive function has been presented. Discussion It goes without saying that under the above belief, as the decorative function of verses and hadiths in the heart of texts is paid attention to, other and perhaps more important functions are not paid attention to. However, this is not just limited to this rhetorical technique. The current research aims to discuss one of the most important functions of the adaptation technique. To be more precise, this research is based on the belief that the theologian's purpose in using the holy texts is not simply to enlighten his words, but in some cases, he decides to take help from the influence and power of such texts in order to prove his claim and convince the audience of his claim based on the confirmation he gets from them. This type of function can be referred to as ‘argumentative-persuasive function’ and it can be read in the light of the argumentative technique of ‘argument from authority’ included in the ‘theory of Argumentation’ of Perleman and Tyteca, according to which personal actions or speech or an institution is considered to be a proof of the correctness of certain propositions. Results The results of the present study indicate that in the process of adaptation, it is possible to use the verses of the Holy Qur'an, hadiths, and narrations as a reliable and valid proof to confirm and strengthen one's claim, and by using the authority and influence of these Islamic holy texts make the audience convinced. Such an adaptation is the especially effective when dealing with a person who seeks to confirm and strengthen his claim by guaranteeing human words. In addition, the best way to counter the claim of someone who clings to the authority of the scriptures is to cling to the same type of holy authority. Of course, it should be kept in mind that this is possible only when the parties have a common understanding of the holy texts,otherwise, this argumentation mechanism could not lead anywhere. Providing a model of the argumentative-persuasive function of the technique of adaptation as proof of dominance is the important achievement of the present study.

Stephen Toulmin (1958/2003) has introduced the structures of the argument which he claims to be invariant; i.e. universal, in most disciplines. He maintains that argument structures consist of three main sections, namely, claim, support and background. There are three other aspects of the arguments that, though might not be indispensible parts of an argument, can strengthen the argument. They are as follows: Rebuttal, which can support both claim and support or either of them; backing which tends to support the background and qualifier which affects the certainty of the writer of the claim. The present study aimed at finding the similarities and differences between the texts written by three authors of Ghajar era (Assadabadi, Talebof, and Malkomkhan) in postulating arguments. To fulfill this objective, Toulmin Model of Argument is applied to these three argumentative texts. The logic behind choosing these writers is that they are all considered to be very influential in enlightening movement during Ghajar era. It is worth mentioning that each of these writers is considered to be the representative of a different ideological mindset of their time, actively affecting the Constitutional movement in Iran.