The current study replicated an earlier investigation by Bouwer and van der Veen (2023) where 10 Grade 5 and 6 classrooms in the Netherlands (210 students) were randomly assigned to a treatment or control condition, with treatment students evidencing improvements in the quality of their essays after practice writing argumentative essays, reading and discussing them with a small group of peers, and revising each essay based on the discussion that ensued. In the present study, 12 Grade 2 to 4 classrooms in Türkiye (383 students) were randomly assigned to this write, talk, and rewrite dialogic treatment or to a control condition. Students in the control condition practiced planning and writing the same four argumentative essays as treatment students did during the experiment, and each of these essays was shared with peers (time spent in both conditions was comparable). Control students did not, however, discuss their essay with peers or use such feedback to revise them as was done by students in the write, talk, and rewrite dialogic treatment. When the nested nature of the data and pretest scores were held constant, the quality of the argumentative posttest essays produced by students in the treatment condition evidenced greater improvement than essays written by control students. The same outcome was obtained for the length of essays (number of words) when the nested nature of the data and pretest scores were held constant. This investigation provided evidence that the write, talk, and rewrite dialogic intervention tested by Bouwer and van der Veen (2023) was effective in improving the argumentative writing of even younger students in a different country. Implications for research and practice are provided.

当前的研究重复了 Bouwer 和 van der Veen (2023) 的一项早期调查，其中荷兰 10 个 5 年级和 6 年级教室（210 名学生）被随机分配到治疗组或对照组，接受治疗的学生表现出他们的学习质量有所提高。练习写议论文，与一小群同伴阅读和讨论，并根据随后的讨论修改每篇文章。在本研究中，土耳其 12 个 2 至 4 年级教室（383 名学生）被随机分配到这种写、说和重写对话治疗组或控制条件组。控制条件下的学生与实验组学生在实验期间练习计划和撰写相同的四篇议论文，并且每一篇文章都与同龄人分享（两种条件下花费的时间相当）。然而，对照学生并没有像写作、谈话和重写对话处理中的学生那样，与同学讨论他们的论文或利用此类反馈来修改论文。当数据的嵌套性质和预测试分数保持不变时，治疗条件下学生撰写的议论文后测试论文的质量比对照学生撰写的论文有更大的提高。当数据的嵌套性质和预测试分数保持不变时，论文的长度（字数）得到了相同的结果。这项调查提供的证据表明，Bouwer 和 van der Veen（2023）测试的写作、谈话和重写对话干预对于提高不同国家甚至更年轻的学生的议论文写作能力是有效的。提供了对研究和实践的启示。