The objective of an argument is to support one’s claims and conclusions with reasons or evidence (Toulmin, 2003; Halpern, 2014). In academic contexts, the claims and conclusions are backed with prior research and/or empirical data (Swales, 1990; Wolfe, 2011). In argumentative guidebooks, an argument is often presented as a simple one or two sentence structure, but in practice it is often integrated in broader entities such as written essays or articles, or spoken addresses or debates (see Andrews, 2009). Most assignments that a higher education student—across disciplines—encounters during their studies require argumentative writing (Wolfe, 2011). Assignments that require argumentation have also been considered a valuable tool for learning. Such assignments have been found to be a particularly advantageous method when learning about complex topics with diverse viewpoints and complex skills such as critical thinking (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2016; Iordanou et al., 2019; Kuhn, 2019).

There is no template for constructing an argumentative text, but the writer must identify the requirements of the situation, and the best ways to fulfill those requirements (see Johns, 2008). A major decision in argumentative writing is related to choosing the placing of claims or conclusions and evidence. These rhetorical strategies are culture-specific to some degree; in other words, one strategy may be favored over another, across genres and communities. For instance, Finnish writers have been found to prefer to present all evidence and elements of uncertainty before their conclusion (final focus), in contrast to Anglo-American writers who prefer to present their inference first and then proceed to evidence (initial focus) (Mauranen, 1993; Mikkonen, 2010; see also Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969).

In addition to variation across cultures, argumentative skills have also been suggested to be, at least in part, discipline-specific (Andrews, 2009, 2015). Accordingly, there are disciplinary differences in the epistemologies that influence how to evaluate an argument (e.g., Hetmanek et al., 2018). However, beyond the varying conventions of cultures and disciplines, arguments and argumentative texts have more generic features. This includes development and presentation of one’s position (Andrews, 2009; Wingate, 2012), and micro- and macrostructures of argumentation, such as claim or conclusion and evidence, and introduction, counterarguments, and discussion (Kuhn, 1991; Toulmin, 2003; Breivik, 2020). To learn the discipline-specific conventions of argumentation, it is necessary to master the generic features. Consequently, the ability to use generic features of argumentation is eminently important for novice students who are new to higher education. They are not yet integrated in their study program or academic writing community (Swales, 1990; Donald, 2002). However, despite the lack of relevant skills, novice students receive little guidance in argumentative writing. In the absence of proper guidance to academic requirements, they are tapping into the skills they have learnt in their prior education (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Andrews et al., 2006). In Finland, it has been suggested that argumentation is not sufficiently emphasized in the upper secondary school, and its final exams, the Matriculation Examination (Mäntynen, 2009; Komppa, 2012). However, evidence-based information about Finnish novice higher education students’ argumentative writing is scarce. While we know that they have some problems in consistency of their arguments (Hyytinen et al., 2017), there is no research on more generic features in argumentative writing.

Taking a position is at the core of argumentation (Andrews, 2009; Wingate, 2012). Typically, the position is seen as the viewpoint the writer intends to support, or the main point the writer intends to make. The position conveys the writer’s explicit presence in the text (Mauranen, 1993; Hyland, 2005). Additionally, to strengthen the argument, the position can be challenged with alternative positions (see Andrews, 2009). Failing to take a position can lead to problems in higher education studies where argumentation skills are vital (e.g., Wolfe, 2011). Such problems often go hand in hand with problems in deep learning and meaning construction (Biggs, 1988; see also Petrić, 2007).

In argumentative writing, the position is often expressed as a thesis, a holistic main claim that summarizes the writer’s point of view (Kakkuri-Knuuttila and Halonen, 1998; Mikkonen, 2010; Wolfe, 2011). However, the position is not always expressed as explicitly as a thesis. Indeed, it has been found that higher education students have challenges in emphasizing their position, and instead, they may lean toward research sources, as well as summarizing, and attributing (Lea and Street, 1998; Petrić, 2007; Mäntynen, 2009; McCulloch, 2012; Laakso et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2018). Consequently, they do not take a position, but they rather display their knowledge on the topic (see Petrić, 2007). Higher education students can feel inadequate for making a strong point (Ivanič, 1998; Andrews, 2009; Mendoza et al., 2022). They may avoid making a holistic statement like a thesis by making so called local arguments. These are claims that encompass a short proportion of the text, and do not summarize the point of view of the entire text (Mauranen, 1993; Wolfe, 2011). However, writers may also imply their position in more subtle ways than stating an explicit thesis or even making local arguments. Linguists talk about interactional features, referring to elements that convey writer’s relation with their text (Hyland and Tse, 2004; Hyland, 2005). Writers might withhold (hedge) or emphasize (boost) their commitment, express their affective attitudes (attitude marker), or use first-person forms to remind reader of their presence in the text (self-mention) (Hyland, 2005).

Discussion of diverse viewpoints, i.e., alternative positions, is an important yet challenging part of argumentation (Kuhn, 1991; Andrews, 2009; Wingate, 2012; Kuhn et al., 2016b). In its strongest form, a rebuttal, an explicit position is taken against some evidence. Just as they may be hesitant in their position-taking, as discussed above, even advanced higher education students may have challenges in introducing alternative positions in their argumentation (Laakso et al., 2016; Hyytinen et al., 2021b; Kuhn and Modrek, 2021). Even acknowledgment of alternative positions is difficult for many, not to mention rebutting them (Kuhn, 1991). This tendency has been called my-side bias, indicating an inability to see other alternatives (Perkins, 1989). However, these challenges may not be about an inclination to emphasize one’s own opinion but instead they reflect the writer’s incorrect perception of an argument (Wolfe and Britt, 2008; Wingate, 2012). Writers may see a good argument as a one-sided construction, and so they bring out all the supporting evidence, and leave out any contesting facts. The ability to develop rebuttals requires a basic understanding of position-taking, and usually, the presence of rebuttals is an indication of a higher overall quality of argumentation (Wolfe et al., 2009; Kuhn et al., 2016a).

The variation in position-taking can be a consequence of either hesitancy or uncertainty (Ivanič, 1998; Andrews, 2009; Lee et al., 2018) or an incorrect perception about position-taking and the characteristics of an argument (Wolfe and Britt, 2008; Andrews, 2009; Breivik, 2020). However, research has pointed out other reasons students may avoid position-taking. Cultural conventions, such as inclination to minimize writer presence in a text, can add to the challenge (Mauranen, 1993). Furthermore, the tendency to reward students for showing what they know instead of constructing new meanings discourages writers from developing their own positions (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Andrews, 2009). Overall, some writers intend to present all available evidence, in contrast to writers who intend to construct new information based on available evidence (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Biggs, 1988). Some interesting contrasting findings suggest that assignment directions could be a culprit behind the challenges. The writer may not correctly identify the requirements of an assignment. It has been found that even when explicit requests are made for position-taking, writers may fall back on a strategy of summarizing sources (Macbeth, 2006; Andrews, 2009; Paldanus, 2017). However, when the directions come across, higher education students and even younger adolescents are able to present an explicit position (Marttunen, 1994; Marttunen and Laurinen, 2004; Mikkonen, 2010).

Argumentative writing is demanding, and novice students cannot be expected to master the conventions and hidden rules of the academic context (Swales, 1990; Ivanič, 1998; Macbeth, 2006; Johns, 2008; Andrews, 2009). To understand where novice students stand in their argumentative writing skills, all dimensions of argumentation need to be studied; implementing logic, rhetoric, and dialectic approaches. A tendency in the research of argumentation in the higher education studies is to focus on the validity and quality of arguments (cf. Andrews, 2009; Wingate, 2012). However, if students do not understand what an argument is or are not able to formulate their arguments on a textual level, teaching more abstract and often discipline-specific aspects of argumentation, such as validity, may be futile. Furthermore, novice students’ preparedness for argumentative writing in the academic context has been questioned, but research-based understanding of the matter is insufficient. Thus, the present study investigates novice students’ argumentative writing on a very basic level, namely focusing on their position-taking skills. Such investigation will bring insights into supporting novice students in their studies. The growing understanding of novice students’ starting level skills will help not only writing teachers, but all teachers in higher education who are involved in giving writing assignments.

The aim of our study was to explore starting level skills of novice higher education students’ argumentative writing. In more detail, we investigate how they take a position in an argumentative essay, and how they present alternative positions. Our specific research questions were:

Higher education admissions in Finland are extremely competitive (OECD, 2019). Until recently, all applicants have participated in discipline-specific entrance examinations, but recently more emphasis was put on academic achievement in prior education (Kleemola and Hyytinen, 2019). The upper secondary school in Finland consists of a general and a vocational track. The aim of the general track is to give students extensive general knowledge and to prepare them for further education either in higher education or in vocational training. While the general track introduces all subjects to all students, different emphases are allowed, such as mathematics, natural sciences, or languages. In contrast, the vocational track aims to give students vocational competence in their chosen field. Some general subjects are taught, but the focus is on vocational skills. It is noteworthy that both general and vocational tracks give eligibility for higher education admissions. Thus, novice students in higher education have varied academic backgrounds.

The data were collected in accordance with the ethical principles of research with human participants by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (2019). Students gave their consent to participation. The data were collected in a national project on higher education students’ generic skills (Ursin et al., 2021). Based on instructions and templates provided by the project, administrators, and teachers in participating institutions invited students via e-mail. Approximately 25% of the invited students participated. In the national project, 1538 first-year students participated in the early stages of their first study term. Participation was voluntary, and students could withdraw from the research at any time. Sixty-nine students did not complete the assessment, and they were not included in any analyses. For the purposes of the present study, a subsample of the data was selected. The aim was to sample a subgroup that would represent a wide range of disciplines, and the variation in argumentative writing within the whole data. With these aims in mind, two large multidisciplinary higher education institutions in southern Finland were selected to represent the data. The selection of students in two institutions instead of a random sample across the 18 participating institutions ensured that there was not too much contextual variation in the students of the subgroup. One of the institutions was a research-intensive university (99 students) and one was a university for applied sciences (97 students). The subgroup of 196 Finnish-speaking students covered the whole range of performance levels in the national project, assessing generic skills. Thus, it was assumed that the subsample would represent the variation in argumentative writing within the whole data. Students represented a diversity of study fields, including healthcare, humanities, biosciences, engineering, natural sciences, and social sciences, covering most of the key disciplines. While it is possible that study fields attract students with different skillsets, the present study does not report disciplinary differences, as participating novice students were not yet exposed to different disciplinary cultures. Students’ mean age was 24.83 (SD = 6.85) and median age 22.00. While this is slightly older than the average starting age, it is worthy to note that Finns typically start in higher education older than in other countries (OECD, 2019). The majority of the students (84%) had completed the general track in the upper secondary school.

Participants completed a computer-based Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA +) that includes an open-ended performance task and a multiple-choice section. The open-ended task, used in the present study, required students to think critically and argue for their response in writing (see Klein et al., 2007; Kleemola et al., 2021). The task at hand was designed to activate argumentative writing skills in participants. Furthermore, it was suitable for assessing argumentative writing in the academic context: participants were required to develop a position by means of leaning on documents that were provided in the task. Thus, the task simulated the reality of academic contexts in that the text should be embedded in the existing research literature (see e.g., Swales, 1990). Performance tasks in general have been found to be motivating for students (Kane et al., 2005; Hyytinen and Toom, 2019; Hyytinen et al., 2021c). The task that was used in the study is confidential, but similar tasks are introduced by Shavelson (2010) and Hyytinen and Toom (2019). In the task, students were asked to take a role of an intern in a city government, where they would have to solve a problem and give a report concerning different life expectancies in two cities, Woodby and Brookdale. They were provided five documents, namely a blog post, a podcast transcript, a memorandum, a newspaper article, and an infographic. They were asked to give their response to the problem as an essay, and their proposals for action. They were reminded to discuss any counterarguments, and to support their own claims with information in the available documents. Students had 60 min to complete the task. The length of the responses ranged from one sentence of about 10 words to several pages of about 800 words.

Qualitative content analysis was used to investigate students’ texts. An abductive approach (e.g., Timmermans and Tavory, 2012) was adopted, namely the analysis was theory-driven to start with, but researchers kept an open mind to new discoveries based on the data. Both a group-level approach (RQ1 and RQ2) and an individual-level approach (RQ3) were used to gain a multifaceted view on the topic. The investigation proceeded in six main phases that are presented in Table 1. The process was non-linear in that the authors discussed findings and issues continuously during the process.

In the first phase of the analysis, all three authors became familiar with the data by reading students’ responses. During this phase, general observations were made about the data and were discussed. In the second phase of the analysis, theory-based analysis criteria for identifying the position and alternative positions were created by the first author. The criteria are described in detail below. In phase three, the analysis criteria were implemented by the first author. In addition, data-based, novel features were noted. The episodes with positions and alternative positions were located and their variation was explored and reflected in light of existing research. In phase four, the second author analyzed independently 25% of the essays that were randomly selected. The first and second authors discussed the findings, negotiated their differences, and adjusted analysis criteria where needed and integrated the data-based findings in the criteria. In phase five, the first author re-analyzed the data according to the adjusted criteria from phase four. Finally, in phase six, all authors discussed the findings, and remaining analysis challenges. Additionally, groups of argumentative writers were identified on the basis of the findings.

The analysis criteria were created and adjusted during phases two and four. The criteria aimed for describing the variation in the students’ texts instead of creating exclusive categories. To respond to RQ1, writers’ positions were analyzed, and two types of episodes were traced, namely explicit thesis-statements and other position-indicating expressions (see also Table 2 in “Results” section). The thesis was defined as the response for the main question (Mauranen, 1993). In academic texts, the question is the research question or research aim. In the present study, the task question “what is the reason for the different life expectancies in the two cities?” was considered to be the relevant question. Furthermore, the thesis should be a holistic claim, summarizing the main point of the whole text (Mauranen, 1993). During the analysis in phase three, it was found that some of the essays included a thesis-like statement that responded to a more generic question than the actual task question, having a different orientation (see more in “Results” section). In phase four it was determined that these were included as a thesis, but thesis orientation was to be examined. According to theories and prior studies, the thesis location could be in the introductory section of the text (initial focus), in the conclusion section of the text (final focus) or both (Nestorian order) (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Mauranen, 1993). Thus, the thesis was traced in these sections. Expressions such as “in conclusion” were first looked for, but as Finnish writing tends to include less such metatext (Mauranen, 1993), the content of the sentences was examined more carefully. Consequently, typical expressions were “is caused by,” “significant factors are,” and “the reason behind—is.” A closer analysis of the variation in the thesis-statements revealed that the thesis precision varied, and thus, it was integrated in the analysis criteria in phase four and examined. It was found that some thesis-statements were vague, and some included hedges that are interactional elements implying uncertainty (Hyland, 2005). In philosophical theories, such expressions have been considered to be modal qualifiers (Toulmin, 2003) that assess the degree of probability of the statement, namely how likely they think the statement to be true.

If a thesis could not be found, other position-indicating expressions were traced. Interactional elements (Hyland, 2005) were traced, namely attitude markers and self-mentions that appear without a thesis. Affective, and attitudinal expressions, such as “positive,” “unreliable,” “questionable,” and “cannot be trusted” were traced. In addition, the first-person forms of pronouns “I” and verbs “I recommend” (Finnish verbs have an integrated first-person form which does not require the pronoun) were traced. During the analysis, it was found that in some essays there were explicit claims that could nevertheless not be identified as a holistic thesis. These were recognized as local arguments (Mauranen, 1993; Wolfe, 2011), that indicate a position while not expressing it holistically, in the way that the present study defined the thesis. Local arguments were integrated in the analysis criteria in phase four. Finally, in some essays we found no position-taking, neither explicit thesis nor other position-indicating expressions.

In analyzing alternative positions (RQ2), we traced episodes where the writer showed their awareness on rival explanations to the task question, namely “what else could be the reason behind the different life expectancies, but maybe is not true?” (see also Table 3 in “Results” section). Such episodes show that the writer accepts the possibility of diversity in the positions, while they do not necessarily always express an explicit position against the evidence (Kuhn, 1991). Thus, we traced both rebuttals and expressions of contradictory positions. To trace these episodes, we looked for contrasting expressions such as “however,” and “on the other hand.” Furthermore, we looked for rebuttals, such as “is not significant,” “does not affect,” and “I can’t agree.” Additionally, as mentioned above in thesis-identification, content of the sentences was examined beyond metatext. Structures such as “X says Y, Z says not Y” were noted. During the analysis, variation was detected in the rebuttals, namely in the reasoning, hesitancy, and attitudes. These features were integrated in the analysis criteria in phase four.

To respond to RQ3, findings of RQ1 and RQ2 were examined carefully. At this point, the variation in the degree of writer’s presence through their position-taking was recognized as the guiding theme. Four groups were created examining the aspects of position-taking, their differences, and similarities. The differences between the groups culminated in explicitness of their position. The process of creating the groups is also presented in the “Results” section (Figure 1).

Investigator triangulation was used in the data analysis (Denzin, 1970). Becoming familiar with the data in the first phase allowed all authors to evaluate findings in light of the entire dataset. While the first author performed the analyses in phases three and five, all authors discussed and evaluated findings and considered challenging features throughout the process. Additionally, in phase four, the independent analysis by the second author and discussions that followed ensured that all authors interpreted the analysis criteria similarly.

The excerpts that are presented in the “Results” section are translations from Finnish to English. Any typos were omitted in translations as they were not relevant to the present study. Some details concerning the content have been altered in order to preserve confidentiality of the task. These alterations do not influence the analysis of the position-taking that is the focus of the present study.

Position-indicating episodes were identified in the essays and variation was analyzed. The sources of variation are summarized in Table 2. An explicit thesis was detected in 125 (64%) essays. The thesis-statements varied in their orientation, location, and precision. An explicit thesis could not be detected in 71 essays (36%). However, in some of these essays, a degree of writer presence and position-taking could be detected, namely interactional elements and local arguments.

In line with the research questions, the variation in ways that writers used to present alternative positions were analyzed. The findings are summarized in Table 3.

Alternative positions were presented in altogether 95 (48%) essays. Two main types of presenting alternative positions, namely rebuttals and contradictory positions, were identified. In rebuttals, the writer explicitly took a position against a piece of evidence within the materials. Of the essays that included alternative positions, 53 (56%) presented a rebuttal. In contrast, the rest of the essays presented contradictory positions. In this type of essay, the writer summarized opposing positions from different sources without taking a personal position toward the issue.

Based on the analysis of variation in presentations of position and alternative positions in students’ essays, we identified that the degree of writer’s presence in the text through their position-taking was a guiding theme across the findings. Therefore, we identified four kinds of writers. Variation in all detected aspects of position-taking was taken in consideration, however, the explicitness of position-taking was found to be the differentiating feature. The process of creating writer groups, and the differentiating features are presented in Figure 1.

Based on the analysis, we labeled the first group as Writers with strong position. These writers were consistently explicit in their position-taking. In this group, writers took an explicit position toward the evidence, stating an explicit thesis and an explicit rebuttal. Altogether 37 essays represented this group. There was variation in thesis orientation, both types were detected. Likewise, the thesis location varied. In regard to thesis precision, the majority of these essays presented an exact rather than a vague thesis (see example 10 above). Additionally, few of the thesis-statements in this group included hedges, expressing uncertainty. In addition to presenting a thesis, some of these essays also presented local arguments about each theme they discussed. There was more variation in rebuttals in the group. Rebuttal reasoning was varying, some writers presented more comprehensive reasons for their rebuttal than others, and some were more hesitant than others (see examples 19–23). All in all, interactional elements were present in most of the essays in this group. However, interestingly, some writers in this group withheld any other indications of their presence apart from the explicit thesis and the explicit rebuttal.

We labeled the second group as Writers with volatile position. These writers did take an explicit position but were more inconsistent compared to the first group. Writers either presented an explicit thesis or a rebuttal, but not both. Altogether 105 essays represented this group. The majority (F = 89) of these essays included only a thesis, but interestingly, some essays (F = 16) presented a rebuttal but not a thesis. Thesis orientation and thesis location varied in these essays just as in the first group. However, there was a difference in thesis precision. There was more vagueness and uncertainty compared to the first group. Half of those essays that presented only a rebuttal, had local arguments (see example 17), indicating that writers were willing to take a position, but they did not do it in a holistic manner as a thesis. The reasoning behind rebuttals were varied just as in the first group. Interestingly, most of the essays in this group that did not present a rebuttal, did not present any contradictory positions either. The presence of interactional elements was varied in this group.

The third group was labeled as Writers with implied position. Instead of being explicit in their position-taking as did writers in the first and second groups, these writers instead showed their presence in their essays using various ways to imply their position. They did not take an explicit position either in the form of a thesis or a rebuttal. Instead, the essays in this group included some interactional elements that implied their association with the evidence. Altogether 30 essays represented this group. Typically, these essays included critique (example 12), commentary or reflective sections (examples 13–14), and first-person expressions (examples 15–16). Approximately half of these essays had some local arguments (see example 17), implying some position toward the evidence. Additionally, about half of the essays in this group presented some contradictory positions.

Finally, the fourth group was labeled as Summarizing writers. These writers did not show their position toward the evidence in their essays, but they instead summarized the source materials, either by document or by theme. In other words, no thesis, no rebuttal, and no interactional elements were detected in the essays. Altogether 24 essays represented this group. The only indications toward their presence may have been the choice of summarized documents: if they thought some evidence was not relevant for the task question, they omitted it. Nevertheless, some of these essays included contradictory evidence (examples 26–27). This showed that at least some of these writers acknowledged the importance of diverse viewpoints.

The present findings invite higher education teachers to focus not only on advanced questions of argument validity but also on basic questions concerning how to build argumentation on a textual level, how to identify requirements in each situation, and how to introduce alternative explanations. All higher education teachers, not just writing teachers, should be aware that not all students have learnt basic argumentation in their prior education. Argumentation is difficult, and students need adequate, explicit guidance that focuses on basics (Andrews, 2009; Wingate, 2012; Paldanus, 2020). Fortunately, studies show that even small interventions such as tutorials or exposures to multifaceted texts can help students in their argumentative writing (Wolfe et al., 2009; Kuhn and Modrek, 2021). For instance, analysis of texts with explicit position-taking and summarizing strategies (see Paldanus, 2020), and asking guiding questions about the writer’s position could be helpful (see Wingate, 2012). Such small interventions would nudge the Writers with strong position and Writers with volatile position toward stronger argumentation. However, interventions are not a magic bullet. If students have deficiencies in the basics of composition, as did students in the Summarizing writers group, they require more work and guidance. Furthermore, some of the challenges students have in their position-taking may be due to their self-doubt. Novice students—and even senior students—may feel they are not competent in expressing any position (Ivanič, 1998; Andrews, 2009; Mendoza et al., 2022), and teachers should address such perceptions. Giving more space for discussions and debates would benefit all students in developing their expertise and self-confidence. A vital task of higher education is not only to build expertise but to strengthen the sense of expertise in students.

Co-operation between faculty teachers and writing teachers could be beneficial in integrating learning of argumentation with discipline-specific studies. Supporting students in their position-taking and argumentation has wide-ranging benefits to other generic skills that are needed in higher education. Argumentative skills help in developing students’ critical thinking, academic writing, and overall communicative skills, in addition to supporting knowledge acquisition (Wingate, 2012; Asterhan and Schwarz, 2016; Iordanou et al., 2019; Kuhn, 2019). However, argumentative assignments are not beneficial for learning if students do not receive guidance in the basics of argumentation (Iordanou et al., 2019).

Higher education teachers should be aware that prior education may give little guidance to argumentation and rhetoric (Andrews, 2009). The emphases are culture-specific, and for instance in the Finnish context, the upper secondary education does not focus on such skills (Marttunen and Laurinen, 2004; Mäntynen, 2009; Mikkonen, 2010; Komppa, 2012). The consequence of this shortcoming is that higher education students need even more support in their academic writing, and teachers should not assume that novice students are fully prepared to take on the academic genre.

In the present study, some students did not answer the question prompted in the task, but their response reflected a broader and more generic topic. Earlier research has similar observations. Students may have difficulties in understanding task assignments and what is expected of them (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Macbeth, 2006). Understanding principles of the argumentation is futile if students cannot identify situational requirements (Swales, 1990; Mauranen, 1993; Johns, 2008). Consequently, teachers across disciplines are encouraged to focus on clear and precise directions when giving assignments. Giving students opportunities to discuss assignment requirements can help in facing novel situations (see Johns, 2008).

In the present study, two types of triangulation were used, namely investigator triangulation and theory triangulation (Denzin, 1970), strengthening the findings. In investigator triangulation, multiple researchers participated in the data analysis, ensuring that any alternative interpretations were considered and integrated in the analysis. In theory triangulation, multiple theoretical approaches were integrated, namely pedagogical, linguistic, and philosophical theories. This allowed for a practical approach, to support higher education teachers, and not to limit to one theoretical framework.

In the study design and the implementation of the assessment, some limitations were observed. In future studies, these points need to be addressed. The possible ambiguity of assignments needs to be acknowledged in the future. In the present task, students were prompted to write an essay, which is an ambiguous concept at best (see Johns, 2008), and is often associated with study assignments, or exams. While the intention of the task was for the student to take the role of an intern in a city government, the use of the word “essay” may have led some students to associate the assignment with their studies. Such association may have activated a knowledge-display mode instead of argumentative writing (e.g., Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Petrić, 2007). On the other hand, the task was not a part of students’ real studies, and thus, not assessed as an assignment related to their studies. This may have had influence on students’ motivation and effort they have put to the task. Additionally, students worked under time pressure, having 60 min to complete the task. This may have influenced their performance as they may have run out of time. The time limitation could even discourage students from engaging in complex cognitive processes (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Paldanus, 2020). In future studies of argumentative writing, students should be allowed to take their time, to obtain a realistic picture of their skills. However, working under time pressure may possibly reveal about which skills students can effortlessly use in a tight situation and which skills come less easily to them. In any case, all participants in the present study had the same time constraint. Finally, it is important to recognize that a study of end products, i.e., finished texts, does not tell us about strategies and processes students use while writing the text or decisions they make (e.g., Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987; Hyytinen et al., 2021c). For instance, based on our findings, we do not know, if the Summarizing writers made a conscious decision about not expressing their position, or if Writers with strong position stumbled across their thesis-statement instead of goal-oriented writing. In future, combining study of texts with cognitive laboratories allowing investigating cognitive processes during writing, would bring a more thorough understanding of argumentative skills and strategies of novice students.