A recent shift in the composition studies has resulted in the renewal of interest in rhetorical invention. There is no uniformity among researchers and professionals about the optimal conditions preceding the composing process, especially among college students. This study was intended to explore the effectiveness of structured (Larson's Heuristic) and non-structured (freewriting) strategies of rhetorical invention produced by community college students. The objectives of this study were to determine the following: 1) whether there is an overall improvement of students' written argumentation after instruction in the strategies of rhetorical invention; 2) whether college student writers are more likely to use structured than non-structured strategies of rhetorical invention after instruction in both strategies; 3) whether there is a relationship between the nature of invention strategy used by the students spontaneously on the pre-test and the type of rhetorical invention used by them in the post-test; and 4) whether there is a relationship between the type of rhetorical invention and the quality of final drafts of argumentative essays. The study was designed as a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Matched-samples t-test, chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, and ANOVA procedures were employed to address specific research questions of this research. Focus groups, conducted during the final stage of the research, provided emic data about students' experience in and attitude toward the strategies of rhetorical invention. Findings indicate that though students' performance on the post-test was higher than on the pre-test, there was no statistically significant improvement in the quality of written argumentation after the completion of instruction in the strategies of rhetorical invention. Secondly, after completion of the instruction, students used structured (Larson's Heuristic) and non-structured (freewriting) strategies of rhetorical invention with comparable frequently. Thirdly, there was a moderate relationship between the type of rhetorical invention used by student writers in the pre-test and the type of rhetorical invention used by them in the post-test and that in the pre-test. Finally, there was a statistically significant relationship between the type of rhetorical invention and the quality of the final drafts of written argumentation in the pre-test. Further, the length of evidence of rhetorical invention was related strongly to the quality of the final drafts in the pre-test. No statistically significant relationship was detected between the type of rhetorical invention and the quality of written argumentation in the post-test. The results of this study enabled the researcher to articulate questions and provide suggestions for future investigation of written composing and rhetorical invention among college students. / Ph. D.

There has been considerable research into the teaching and learning of argumentation (e.g. Andrews, 2009; Sadler, 2004), focusing on strategies designed to help students to structure their written arguments. My study, however, focuses on the process of argumentation because I want to help sixth form students, aged 16-19 years old, improve the written argument in their A level History essays. The methodological approach followed was an adapted form of Design-based research, which incorporated an exploratory study, teacher trials and three case studies as part of the iterative design process. A classroom intervention was devised underpinned by design principles based in persuasive argumentation (Kuhn, 2005) and dialogic talk (Wegerif, 2012), derived from an extensive literature review, and the findings of the exploratory study. The exploratory study involved interviews with History education academics and examiners as well as classroom observations and semi-structured interviews conducted in collaboration with the teachers and students of four secondary History departments. Observations were taken of the teacher trials of the prototype intervention, whereas the data gathered from the case studies included pre and post intervention essays, audio and video recordings of the developed intervention in action, post intervention student interviews and questionnaires as well. In Case study 1 and 2, AS and A2 students’ post-intervention causation essays, when measured for argumentation, showed improvement but those whose written arguments improved the most were those students who had engaged in interactions rich in dialogic talk (Wegerif, 2012). The findings from Case study 3, which involved the integration of documentary evidence into AS History essays, were unexpected. Students found the integration of source-based evidence difficult not only during the course of the spoken argumentation but also in their written responses. Further development of the intervention is necessary to help students handle source material effectively in both the spoken and written forms of argument.