Enriching University Students' Use of Logical Connectors (LCs) in Bilingual Written Scientific Argumentation (BWSA)

Bilingual scientific literacy (BSL) is one of the educational domains gaining prominence in twenty-first century societies. University bilingual science courses are legitimate and desirable scenarios for the promotion of bilingual written scientific argumentation (BWSA) as part of BSL. Recent studies indicate that the use of 'logical connectors' (LCs) or 'linking words' is a critical aspect of BWSA. The problem is that very little evidence is available on how to enrich university students' use of LCs in BWSA. The goal of this study was to determine how a formative assessment-based pedagogical strategy (FAPS) could help students enrich the use of LCs. We examined the BWSA produced by 70 students (34 females and 36 males, 15–27 years old) in Colombia during a university Spanish-English bilingual science course. The findings show that the strategy provided participants with opportunities to enrich the use of LCs in their written argumentation in Spanish and in English. Finally, the potential implications for university bilingual education are discussed.

Keywords: Bilingual scientific literacy; bilingual written scientific argumentation; formative assessment; logical connectors; university bilingual science education

'Writing, for nonnative EFL [English as foreign language] learners, is the most difficult skill to be learned' (Shirazi and Mousavi Nadoushani [53], 5) but nonetheless this has received relatively little study in university first language-English bilingual science courses. Recently, Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12]) stressed that preparing undergraduates to (1) communicate their ideas in the global language of science (English), (2) argue their positions, and (3) criticize the argumentation of other scientists and non-scientists, are three aspects that have gradually become a priority for tertiary education institutions. According to Archila and Truscott de Mejía ([15], [16]), university bilingual (e.g. Afrikaans-English, Arabic-English, Chinese-English, Spanish-English, Tagalog-English) science courses are on the rise because of the internationalization of tertiary education. In the majority of these courses, English is a foreign language for undergraduates and instructors.

It is becoming increasingly clear that engaging in bilingual (and multilingual) practices is an important component of university science education in twenty first century societies (Ai [1]; Airey and Larsson [2]; Liwanag and Labor [38]; Mazak [41]; Mazak and Herbas-Donoso [42], [43], [44]; Tong and Shi [55]; Van der Walt [56]). Archila and Truscott de Mejía ([15], [16]) claim that the fundamental principle that guides these courses is that two languages are used, treated, and valued as potential resources for science teaching and learning. They also maintain that this fundamental principle is vital to help convince bilingual science instructors that their courses are legitimate and desirable scenarios for the enrichment of undergraduates' bilingual repertoires.

Airey and Larsson ([2]) remind us that in the twenty-first century, students need to cultivate their scientific literacy as citizens and consumers. One reason for this is that scientific literacy would help them to assess the reliability of scientific claims relevant to personal and social decision making. As part of this idea, Airey and Linder ([3], [4]) have proposed the term 'bilingual scientific literacy' (BSL) to refer to scientific literacy in two languages, which is a key goal of university bilingual science courses. Aragón ([7]) and Archila ([8]) consider scientific argumentation as a cognitive-linguistic skill. Most importantly, they suggest that in bilingual science classrooms, fostering argumentation can contribute to enhancing BSL. However, written (and spoken) bilingual argumentation receives little attention in the practice of bilingual science teaching and learning at all educational levels (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [13]; Ballenger [20]; Bravo-Torija et al. [21]; Quílez [49]; Webb [57], [58]). In the case of higher education, the reason is straightforward: 'most of the instructors in university bilingual science courses are experts in their field (e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Physics). Nevertheless, they are certainly not experts in science education or bilingual education' (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [13], 3–4). Likewise, they have almost no training in how to cultivate undergraduates' bilingual writing skills. As a result, they end up adopting the bilingual Confucian model: bilingual instructors assume a dominant (asymmetric) position from their comfort zone, doing most of the talking in class while undergraduates simply (try to) memorize scientific information, remaining silent and passive (Ai [1]).

We considered bilingual written scientific argumentation (BWSA) as the use of two languages in written mode to communicate a (1) scientific claim, (2) providing scientific evidence, and (3) articulating such evidence with the claim to produce scientific arguments (Archila [8]). Sardà and Sanmartí ([51]) argue that the use of logical connectors (LCs) (e.g. additionally, however, therefore) is a key aspect of written scientific argumentation which is associated significantly with the quality of a composition. Thus, there is growing concern that students find very few opportunities in their science classroom to enrich their use of LCs in written argumentation (e.g. Archila [9], [10]; Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros [11]; Chang and Lee [24]; Hamed [31]; Lahuerta Martínez [35]; Lin [37]; Quílez [49]; Quílez-Díaz and Quílez-Pardo [48]). In this sense, Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([14]) stress that more efforts and resources should be invested in positioning university bilingual science courses as scenarios in which undergraduates find opportunities to enrich their use of LCs to better articulate the relationships between different parts of their BWSA (claim, evidence, and arguments). The problem is that there is very little evidence available on how to enrich university students' use of LCs in BWSA.

Archila ([10]) argues that increasing the students' use of LCs is an appropriate first step for science educators to help students to enrich the use of these cohesive devises, and thus, as a second step, instructors could focus on helping students vary the repertoire of LCs they use. Moreover, Archila ([10]) maintains that as a third and final step, science educators could assist students in the analysis of the logicality of the LCs they use. In the current study, the first and the second steps are addressed. Clearly, providing university students with opportunities to enrich their use of LCs requires a new type of classroom pedagogy that tackles the numerous obstacles of the bilingual Confucian model (Ai [1]). As a viable option to promote BWSA in university level, Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12]) recently proposed a formative assessment pedagogical strategy (FAPS) based on the relationship between peer critique, useful feedback, bilingual capital, and BWSA. The premise that supported their approach is that undergraduates who improve their BWSA might simultaneously cultivate their bilingual repertoires. The present study therefore acknowledged the use of LCs as a key component of BWSA quality (Lahuerta Martínez [35]).

Considering the background discussed above, this research project proposed a FAPS to enrich university students' use of LCs in BWSA. Our empirical study aimed to investigate the enrichment of the use of LCs throughout this formative assessment process. The significance of the present study is that it provides evidence to expand on the scope of some notable work carried out previously that has focused on the promotion of students' BSL and addresses the following research question: To what extent will the FAPS help undergraduates enrich the use of LCs in BWSA?

According to the recent Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (Wright, Boun, and García [59]), there is a 'need for effective bilingual and multilingual education policies and practices that best prepare ALL students for the linguistic realities of local and global contexts' (Wright, Boun, and García [59], 15, capitals in original). A linguistic reality in twenty-first century societies is that 'English is the global language of science, in written as well as oral communication' (Archila and Truscott de Mejía [16], 133, italics in original). That said, English-only practice in university science courses has emerged as a possibility to deal with this linguistic reality, however, evidence indicates that this practice seems impractical and ineffective in countries where English is the second or foreign language (e.g. Aizawa and Rose [5]; Hu and Duan [32]; Liwanag and Labor [38]; Liyanage and Walker [39]; Macaro et al. [40]; Rudwick [50]). Additionally, students' resistance to an English-only format remains problematic (Huang [33]).

Given this situation, university first language-English bilingual science courses appear to be another option. Several scholars (e.g. Alenezi [6]; Liwanag and Labor [38]; Mazak and Herbas-Donoso [43], [44]; Tong and Shi [55]) acknowledge that these courses are legitimate and desirable scenarios for instructors to take advantage of bilingualism to enrich (1) university students' bilingual repertoires, (2) conceptual knowledge, and (3) scientific skills. Recently, Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12], [13], [14]) provided research evidence in this respect. Their results revealed that students enrolled in university bilingual science courses enriched their bilingual repertoires without sacrificing their mastery of scientific knowledge, and most importantly, their bilingual scientific argumentation skills were enhanced. Also, Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([13]) recommend the promotion of BWSA as a way to strengthen undergraduate students' BSL. Airey and Linder ([3], [4]) pointed out that BSL is becoming crucial to appropriately participate in the communicative practices of science. In line with this idea, Yacoubian ([60]) highlights the fact that a scientifically-literate society can contribute to democratic decision-making.

Argumentation studies in first language-English bilingual science education is an area that has demonstrated promising results (e.g. Archila [8]; Webb [57], [58]). Webb ([57], [58]) asserts that opportunities for developing meaningful student-centered scientific talk and writing are unlimited when the student's first language and English are used as pedagogical resources in the classroom. BWSA, in particular, is an important activity in bilingual science learning. It encourages students to claim (take a position), evaluate evidence, and articulate this evidence with the claim to produce scientific arguments before writing this down using two languages, thus making the students' process of reasoning visible. Unfortunately, in many science classrooms, writing activity is limited to mainly copying what instructors write on the board. This can be easily explained by the fact that some instructors themselves do not write and they might not know how to write nor how to foster writing (Putra and Tang [47]).

Sardà and Sanmartí ([51]) consider that written scientific argumentation is a complex activity that requires students' mastery in several aspects, such as: (1) academic language, (2) argumentation, (3) scientific knowledge, and (4) the use of LCs. This last aspect is important to connect the different elements of argumentation (claim, evidence, and arguments). The following are examples of LCs: accordingly, additionally, consequently, finally, first of all, for instance, furthermore, hence, however, in addition, in conclusion, indeed, in fact, in other words, in short, in sum, likewise, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, on the contrary, on the one hand, on the other hand, second, therefore, third, thus, to conclude, yet. LCs (Asassfeh [17]; Chang and Lee [24]; Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia [36]; Lin [37]; Olshtain and Cohen [45]) is one of various terms used to 'indicate the logical relationships between different parts of the text [in our case claim, evidence, and arguments]' (Lin [37]). Others include conjunction (Halliday and Hasan [30]), connective adverbs (Huddleston and Pullum [34]), connectors (Archila [9], [10]; Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros [11]; Granger and Tyson [29]), logical connectives (Quílez [49]), and transition words (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [14]). However, if this is not a sufficient reason to be convinced of the importance of enriching students' use of LCs, Olshtain and Cohen ([45]) highlight four potential benefits of using LCs in more detail:

• LCs indicate the relationship existing among the sentences within a given text and thus lessen the need for complex cognitive processing.
• LCs facilitate the prediction process while reading.
• LCs guide the reader to move forward or backward within the text in order to make logical inferences.
• LCs help readers develop local and global interpretation strategies.

A large body of evidence suggests that more emphasis should be placed on the use of LCs. For example, Hamed ([31]) examined the use of LCs in 32 argumentative essays (200-250 words) written by 16 EFL fourth-year undergraduate Libyan students majoring in English. Findings showed that participants used LCs inappropriately and this weakened the logical connectivity between sentences and paragraphs. In another study, Lahuerta Martínez ([35]) analyzed the use of LCs of 205 high school students in Spain who were enrolled in a Spanish-English bilingual program and 188 students who were not. She found a positive significant relationship between LCs density and the composition global score in both groups. In addition, her outcomes showed little variety in the participants' use of LCs, especially among non-bilinguals.

In Israel, Olshtain and Cohen ([45]) investigated how well 391 eighth graders mastered LCs in Hebrew (their mother tongue). Their findings indicated that about half of the participants had difficulty in creating matching pairs of LCs, which are similar or close in meaning (e.g. at first – at the beginning). In Colombia, Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros ([11]) found a reduced repertoire of LCs in the writings in Spanish (their first language) of 343 students (8-18 years old). In concrete terms, they found that some LCs were overused (e.g. but, then, and thus) while others were underused (e.g. indeed, hence, and however). Consequently, these researchers concluded that the students' written argumentation was difficult to follow. Recently, in Cuba, Cabrera-González, Abreu-Márquez, and Martínez-Abreu ([23]) analyzed the argumentative writing in Spanish of 60 students of different technical science majors. They found that participants' repertoire of LCs was limited. In Spain, Quílez ([49]) examined the effect of a pedagogical strategy using the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology about atomic models. Participants were high school students. The researcher obtained satisfactory results of the use students made of LCs in English (a foreign language) after his intervention. Quílez ([49]) explained that much of the reason for this is that participants involved in CLIL methodology were provided with opportunities to enrich their scientific argumentation.

Lahuerta Martínez ([35]) acknowledges the need to rethink the role of LCs in literacy practices saying that 'high school teachers of English as a second language should place more emphasis on the use of conjunctions [LCs], exposing students to a large quantity of these cohesive ties' (122). From the point of view of first language-English bilingual university science education, we argue that bilingual science instructors can contribute significantly if they start to provide undergraduates with opportunities to enrich their use of LCs. Recognizing that a serious deficit in the literature remains in empirical research on how effective promotion of LCs could take place in university first language-English bilingual science courses, we proposed a FAPS in the present study.

We considered formative assessment as a type of evaluation used to rethink and/or redirect an educational practice while it is still being developed (Scriven [52]). Cowie ([25]) notes that 'an assessment is formative when the assessment data are used to enhance teaching and learning' (Cowie [25], 679). In similar fashion, Sezen-Barrie and Kelly ([54]) point out that useful feedback is the backbone of formative assessment. Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12]) proposed the expression 'formative assessment-based pedagogical strategy' (FAPS) for the first time to refer to a new educational approach aimed at engaging instructors and students in formative assessment bilingual science practices at the university level. A FAPS consists of five stages. 'Each stage is equally important as the next because each has been designed to consistently promote argumentation' (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [12], 1673). These stages can be briefly summarized as follows:

• This stage relates to the instructor. S/he plans the argumentative question that will be presented to the undergraduates. The question should have two main challenges, namely: high-level scientific content complexity, and high-level cognitive processing (argumentative skills).
• This stage relates to the students. Each undergraduate produces a bilingual argumentative paragraph to provide an appropriate answer to the argumentative question.
• This stage relates to the instructor. The instructor carefully reviews the paragraph written by each student. Here, the challenge is to select some paragraphs that will be discussed in Stage 4. The instructor selects those that present difficulties and those that do not. Paragraphs selected are considered assessment data that will be used to engage students in peer assessment and argumentative interaction.
• This stage relates to the students. Undergraduates are engaged in peer assessment and argumentative interaction. This component of the FAPS calls for undergraduates to discuss in small groups in order to critically evaluate the bilingual writings previously selected by their instructor.
• This final stage is related to the instructor and the students. The instructor listens to those students who voluntarily communicate their views and criticisms about the bilingual paragraphs (discussed in Stage 4) to the whole class. The challenge for the instructor is to take advantage of students' participation to promote instructor-student argumentative interaction. This is the way in which the instructor gives instantaneous and useful feedback not only to the students who participate, but also to the whole class.

Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12]) highlight three potential benefits of a FAPS. First of all, students' bilingual repertoires are enriched as a consequence of the multiple opportunities they have to write a bilingual paragraph (Stage 2), criticize the paragraphs of others (Stage 4), and receive useful feedback (Stage 5). Secondly, students' argumentation is promoted when they write an answer to the argumentative question (Stage 2) and are engaged in argumentative interaction (Stages 4 and 5). Thirdly, students' deeper understanding of science is fostered due to the fact that the process of answering (Stage 2) and discussing (Stages 4 and 5) an argumentative question requires not only the integration of several scientific concepts, but also the critical evaluation of scientific evidence. It should be pointed out that these benefits influenced our decision to design and implement a FAPS to enrich undergraduates' use of LCs. Finally, it is important to clarify that we acknowledge that competencies developed in one language can be available in another (Cummins [26]). Thus, in this study, we claim that a key condition for the consideration of a FAPS as a possible means of enriching students' use of LCs is that they have had previous training in the importance of using LCs in written scientific argumentation in their first language (in our case Spanish).

The FAPS was implemented in a university Spanish-English bilingual science course called: Biology of Organisms. This course was chosen by convenience sampling (Bryman [22]). Much of the reason for this is that the second author was the course professor. Biology of Organisms is a large (75–85 students per semester), introductory course that is offered every semester by the Department of Biological Sciences to participants in all undergraduate programs at a private university in Bogotá, Colombia. This university has a high academic ranking in Latin America. Its educational policy is to foster the integration of students from different majors and different age groups. Thus, it is very common to see students from different socioeconomic status, academic achievement, majors (not only Biology and Microbiology), and ages taking this bilingual course.

The Biology of Organisms course is taught over a 15-week period and consists of lectures (two per week, 80 min each), a practical laboratory (one per week, 180 min), and complementary study sessions (one per week, 80 min). In the lecture sessions: (1) the instructor uses PowerPoint® slides, 70% of the text in English and 30% of the text in Spanish with visual presentation of graphs and figures for better comprehension, (2) the lectures are delivered in Spanish and instructor-student and student-student interaction are carried out in this language.

Of 78 eligible students enrolled in the Biology of Organisms course, 74 (94.8%) participated in this study. However, only participants who attended the majority of the sessions were considered in the analysis. This is the reason why in this article we report only the results of 70 undergraduates. Out of these 70 participants, 34 were female and 36 were male. The age distribution ranged from 15 to 27 years, and the average age was 19.2 years (SD = 1.94). It should also be borne in mind that 41 (58.5%), 24 (34.2%), and 5 (7.1%) participants attended monolingual, bilingual, and trilingual schools at secondary level, respectively. It is important to clarify that the terms 'bilingual' and 'trilingual' (French, German, Italian or Mandarin as a foreign language) school in Colombia usually refer to the use of Spanish (first language) and English (foreign language) (de Mejía [27]). However, since the focus of the present study was to concentrate on the process of writing, age, gender, or type of school attended at secondary level were not considered influencing variables or of concern in the study (Bacha [18]).

The authors told the students that their answers would have no influence on their final course grade, and that they could withdraw at any time. Participants and their parents were informed through an informed consent form of the general research purpose. All responses were kept confidential. The authors ensured that the inquiry was not harmful to any of the participants and they were all treated in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA) with respect to consent, confidentiality and anonymity of response. Additionally, undergraduates were assigned codes to protect their privacy, for example, U37 means Undergraduate Number 37.

The instructor who implemented the FAPS is Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Biological Sciences. He is trilingual (Spanish-English-German). He holds a Bachelor's degree in Biology, a Master's degree in Biological Sciences, and a Dr. rer. nat. degree in Neurobiology. He has been teaching the Biology of Organism course for more than 12 years. Recently, he has cooperated in various bilingual university education innovation projects in the field of Biology. The instructor worked collaboratively with an expert in bilingual education, and an expert in bilingual science education and scientific argumentation during the construction process of the FAPS reported in this article and he was wholly committed to implementing it. As suggested by Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12]), he introduced some changes in the Biology of Organism course for better implementation, such as less time for scientific content presentation and more time for (1) BWSA (Stage 2), and (2) student-student (Stage 4) and instructor-student (Stage 5) argumentative interaction. When the data of this study were collected, he had met the student participants for the first time.

As noted above, the Biology of Organism course consisted of two lectures per week. The FAPS was implemented in lecture sessions for a period of ten weeks (Figure 1). In the first week (first class), participants were engaged in a diagnostic activity. Specifically, they were asked to write an argumentative paragraph in Spanish (their first language) in order to provide an appropriate answer to an argumentative question (Question 1 in Appendix 1). Then they were asked to produce an argumentative paragraph in English (the participants' foreign language) to provide an appropriate answer to the same question. Results from this diagnosis are fundamental to determine how much the students progressed throughout the implementation process. Also, in the first week (second class), the university students received instruction on how to (1) construct scientific argumentation (claim, evidence, argument), (2) use LCs in Spanish, and (3) become more conscious of why LCs are important in written scientific argumentation. We decided to include this in order to help students become aware of what is involved in using LCs in written argumentation, as well as to recognize what counts as a high-quality argument in science. As part of the instruction process, participants were presented with the list of LCs in Spanish proposed by Plantin and Muñoz ([46]) and tested in other studies (e.g. Archila [9], [10]; Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros [11]).

Graph: Figure 1. The ten weeks of the implementation of the FAPS (AQ argumentative question, PA peer assessment, UF useful feedback).

As mentioned previously, our study is based on the interdependence of literacy related skills and knowledge across languages theory proposed by Cummins ([26]). Accordingly, from the second to the fourth week, the instructor presented participants with three argumentative questions (one per week) (Questions 2, 3, and 4 in Appendix 1). Students were asked to answer these three questions in Spanish (Figure 1). In the fifth week, the undergraduates received instruction on how to use LCs in English. They were also given the list of LCs in English proposed by Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia ([36]). Then, from the sixth to the tenth week, the instructor presented participants with five argumentative questions (one per week) (Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in Appendix 1). Students were asked to answer these five questions in English (Figure 1). As suggested by Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12]), peer assessment (student-student argumentative interaction) and useful feedback (instructor-student argumentative interaction) took place throughout the FAPS implementation process, particularly from the second to the tenth week (Figure 1).

We created this FAPS (Figure 1) as a way of supporting the instructor to progressively help students enrich the use of LCs in two languages, building bridges between their first language, Spanish, and English, the target language. As already mentioned, the FAPS was implemented in a university Spanish-English bilingual science course by a Spanish-English-German trilingual science instructor. Given this situation and as suggested by Floyd ([28]), the instructor avoided focusing on correcting grammar, and instead emphasized the focus on criticality in students' BWSA. As such, in contrast to a typical instructor following the bilingual Confucian model, he assumed the role of a facilitator within a formative assessment classroom atmosphere in order to foster BWSA (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [12]). Basically, he optimized opportunities for peer assessment and useful feedback in which he promoted the undergraduates' reflection about the importance of using LCs to clearly communicate the process of reasoning that guided the claim, evidence and arguments in their argumentation exercises. Most importantly, the instructor took advantage of peer assessment and the useful feedback to engage students in activities that involved deleting LCs from the paragraphs he had selected previously and constructing compound sentences by using the appropriate LCs.

As clarified in the 'Aim, research question, and significance of the study' section, this empirical study focuses on one main aim: to investigate the enrichment of the use of LCs throughout this formative assessment process. As noted in the 'Educational benefits and stages of a FAPS' section, a FAPS comprises five stages. Data were collected from Stage 2, more specifically, from written responses. These were obtained by means of an argumentative paragraph produced by each participant as an appropriate answer to the argumentative question. During the ten weeks' duration of the intervention (Figure 1), students were asked to produce ten argumentative paragraphs (4 in Spanish and 6 in English) to answer the nine argumentative questions presented by their instructor (Appendix 1). These questions were related to the biological topic studies during that particular week (e.g. evolution, phylogenetics, systematics, etc.). Participants were given 10–15 min to write the paragraphs in Spanish, while they had 15–20 min to write the paragraphs in English. It is important to remember that in the first class of the first week, participants were engaged in a diagnostic activity (Figure 1) in which they were asked to answer the argumentative question 1 (Appendix 1) twice, the first time in Spanish and the second in English. Finally, in the last session, an eighteen-item survey (Appendix 2) was administered to collect data on students' opinion about the intervention. Participation was completely voluntary. Sixty-nine out of the 70 participants answered the survey. The items were based on instruments developed recently (Archila and Truscott de Mejía [15], [16]; Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [12], [13], [14]). The whole survey was printed in Spanish and participants were given the option to decide which language (Spanish, English or a hybrid version using code-switching) they wanted to use to answer the open-ended questions.

Our research question, 'To what extent will the FAPS help undergraduates enrich the use of LCs in BWSA?' was addressed quantitatively using frequency counts to establish the average of LCs used per undergraduate. In addition, we adopted the BWSA analysis suggested by Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12], [13], [14]), as follows: each paragraph was examined to identify the claim, evidence, and arguments. The second author analyzed all the paragraphs. To assess the reliability of this analysis, some paragraphs (about 50%) were analyzed by the first author. Some differences emerged (1.6% of the responses), and a consensus was reached after some discussion and further examination of the students' responses.

As suggested by Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([12], [13], [14]), participants' responses to the survey (Appendix 2) were analyzed using frequency counts. To facilitate the presentation of results, we adopted the way of combining answers in the same Likert-scale statement (Question 9 in Appendix 2) that has been previously used by Archila and Truscott de Mejía ([16]). This is, the answers were grouped into two categories by combining the 'Very frequently' and 'Fairly frequently', responses as well as the 'Infrequently' and 'Never' categories. Finally, adopting the survey analysis suggested by Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía ([13]), the participants' responses to Questions 13–18 (Appendix 2), 'were placed on a rating scale range of frequency: 'strongly disagree (1)', 'disagree (2)', 'no comment (3)', 'agree (4)', or 'strongly agree (5)'. To determine the internal consistency of these questions, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®)' (9). The coefficient obtained was 0.92 which corresponds to a high internal consistency.

The results of the FAPS are presented in the following two sections; the first deals with to what extent the intervention helped participants enrich the use of LCs in BWSA. The second section focuses on the participants' opinion about the Biology of Organisms course as scenario to promote the use of LCs.

As mentioned previously, LCs are important in the development of an appropriate scientific argumentative paragraph because these cohesive devises articulate the relationships between (1) scientific claim, (2) scientific evidence, and (3) scientific arguments. Very often, (1) the claim is communicated in the first lines, this is followed by (2) the evidence, and the last lines are used to present (3) the arguments. Participants were introduced to these aspects of scientific argumentation and to the use of LCs in Spanish in the first week (Figure 1). In the fifth week, the undergraduates received instruction on how to use LCs in English. Furthermore, the results of the survey (Appendix 2) show that 59 out of the 69 respondents had received instruction in argumentation before taking the Biology of Organisms course (Question 1 in Appendix 2). A similar number of students (56 out of the 69 respondents) had received instruction in the use of LCs in Spanish before taking the course (Question 2 in Appendix 2). However, only about half of the participants (35 out of the 69 respondents) had received instruction in the use of LCs in English before taking the course (Question 3 in Appendix 2).

During the ten weeks of the intervention (Figure 1), participants were presented with nine argumentative questions (Appendix 1). Question 1 was used as a diagnosis in which participants were asked to answer Argumentative question 1 twice; the first time in Spanish and the second in English. Argumentative questions 2–9 required the application of concepts covered in lectures during weeks 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. In other words, this meant one question per week. Figure 2 shows the average of LCs per undergraduate; four were written in Spanish (AQ 1, AQ 2, AQ 3, and AQ 4) and five in English (AQ 5, AQ 6, AQ 7, AQ 8 and AQ 9) in the ten argumentative paragraphs produced by participants as response to the nine argumentative questions presented by their instructor. A comparison of AQ1: Spanish and AQ4, indicates that at the beginning of our FAPS, the average of LCs in Spanish used per undergraduate was 1.8 (AQ1: Spanish in Figure 2), and four weeks after, this average was 3.5 (AQ4 in Figure 2). These results suggest that the intervention helped participants to increase the use of LCs in their argumentative paragraphs written in Spanish. A similar increase was found in the use of LCs in English. Specifically, the outcomes indicate that the average of LCs in English used per undergraduate increased from 1.7 to (AQ1: English in Figure 2) to 3.2 (AQ9 in Figure 2).

Graph: Figure 2. Average of LCs used per undergraduate.

The increase in the students' use of LCs is a first positive indicator of the progress of their BWSA. Nonetheless, always using the same LC could result in a monotonous form of writing (and reading). Furthermore, this could be assumed (by the reader) as poor quality writing because of the reduced repertoire of LCs used. Thus, a second indicator has to do with how far participants diversified their LCs. Our findings show that the FAPS helped participants enrich their repertoire of LCs in Spanish and in English. The number of different LCs used by the students in the diagnostic activity was 43 in Spanish (AQ1: Spanish in Figure 3) and 36 in English (AQ2: English in Figure 3). The diversity of LCs used increased to 92 in Spanish (AQ4: Spanish in Figure 3) and to 93 in English (AQ9: English in Figure 3).

Graph: Figure 3. Number of different LCs used per Argumentative question (AQ).

As noted previously, the instructor optimized opportunities for peer assessment and useful feedback in which he promoted the undergraduates' reflection about the importance of using LCs to clearly communicate the process of reasoning that guided the claim, evidence and arguments in their argumentation exercises. Most importantly, the instructor took advantage of peer assessment and the useful feedback to engage students in activities that involved deleting LCs from the paragraphs he had selected previously and re-constructing compound sentences by using the appropriate LCs. Peer assessment and useful feedback are key elements of our FAPS. These elements helped the instructor to monitor not only the progress of the average of LCs used per undergraduate (Figures 2), but also the number of different LCs used per argumentative question (Figure 3) throughout the ten week-long pedagogical intervention.

Our results suggest that the implementation of our FAPS in the Biology of Organisms course helped participants enrich the use of LCs in BWSA (Figures 2 and 3). We asked participants about their opinion of the intervention. Sixty-three out of the 69 participants who answered the survey considered that the Biology of Organisms course had helped them improve their use of LCs (Question 4 in Appendix 2). Some of the reasons they gave include the following: 'The course challenged me to use new connectors, and thus nurture my repertoire', 'each week I produced a paragraph which must be argumentative. This helped me to develop and improve the use of connectors', and 'in the course I knew many connectors that I will be able to use in the future'. This is a relevant finding if we consider that 57 out of the 69 respondents never (26/69) or infrequently (31/69) had the opportunity to write in English in other university courses (Question 9 in Appendix 2). Additionally, 60 out of the 69 respondents acknowledged they had sufficient time to write the argumentative paragraphs (Question 7 in Appendix 2).

As mentioned previously, in the first week, participants were presented with the list of LCs in Spanish proposed by Plantin and Muñoz ([46]) and tested in other studies (e.g. Archila [9], [10]; Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros [11]). Fifty-nine out of the 69 participants who answered the survey acknowledged that the list of LCs in Spanish was useful for them (Question 5 in Appendix 2). Some comments include: 'It helped me not to always repeat the same connector', 'it was useful not only in this course, but also in the others', 'I started to use this list in other courses', and 'it helped me to realize there is a wide variety of connectors. Also, it helped me to increase my vocabulary of connectors'. Furthermore, in the fifth week, participants were given the list of LCs in English proposed by Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia ([36]). Sixty-two out of the 69 respondents of the survey considered the list of LCs in English was useful for them (Question 6 in Appendix 2). Some responses include: 'Similar to the list of connectors in Spanish, the list in English helped me to expand my repertoire', 'having a list of connectors in English helped me to use them easily', and 'I knew no connectors in English'.

Another key outcome of the survey is that 59 out of the 69 respondents considered that the feedback sessions were useful for their learning of the use of LCs in Spanish-English bilingual scientific writing (Question 12 in Appendix 2). Some of their reasons include the following: 'Despite the fact that these sessions took much class time, I think they were useful because they were an opportunity to socialize the common mistakes as a way to improve writing', 'these feedback sessions were the only opportunity I have had to reinforce my writing skills', and 'these sessions showed how to vary the connectors and how to use them in different ways'. Arguably, these reasons illustrate the potential benefits of the feedback sessions as a key element of our FAPS. Finally, it is interesting to note that 18 out of the 69 participants who answered the survey considered that the Biology of Organisms course had not helped them gain confidence in their foreign language written skills (Question 8 in Appendix 2). A reiterative comment includes the following: 'I was already used to writing in English'.

The increase in the students' use of LCs is a first positive indicator of the progress of their BWSA (Figure 2). A second indicator has to do with how much participants diversified their LCs (Figure 3) and the use of the three elements (claim, evidence, arguments) of written scientific argumentation is a third indicator (Figure 4). As noted previously, BWSA is a key aspect of BSL. Therefore, engaging participants in BWSA is crucial in providing students with opportunities to enrich their BSL. A desirable scientific argumentation requires the communication of a (1) scientific claim, (2) providing scientific evidence, and (3) articulating such evidence with the claim to produce scientific arguments (Archila [8]). Clearly, the fact that participants used these three elements in their writing in Spanish and in English suggests not only that they became engaged in BWSA, but also that they became aware of the importance of these. As Archila ([8]) reminds us, students improve their BSL when they improve their BWSA.

Graph: Figure 4. Number of participants that used the three elements of bilingual written scientific argumentation.

We should acknowledge that a significant number of the participants used LCs to articulate the claim, evidence, and arguments in their paragraphs. Nonetheless, only the undergraduates who used all the three elements (claim, evidence, and arguments) in a rational and reasonable way, were considered in the analysis of participants' engagement in BWSA (Figure 4). That being said, Figure 4 shows the results of how well the FAPS helped students nurture their BWSA. These results indicate that at the beginning of the pedagogical intervention, 4 out of the 70 participants used the three elements in their scientific writing in Spanish in a rational and reasonable way (AQ1: Spanish in Figure 4). This number progressively increased in Argumentative questions 2 (13/70), 3 (18/70), and 4 (25/70). In the case of written scientific argumentation in English, Figure 4 shows that in the diagnostic activity, 3 students were able to communicate a scientific claim in a rational and reasonable way, providing scientific evidence, and articulating such evidence with the claim to produce scientific arguments in English (AQ2: English in Figure 4). This number increased in Argumentative questions 5 (31/70), 6 (8/70), 7 (22/70), 8 (59/70), and 9 (24/70). The coexistence of regression (e.g. 8/70, AQ 6 in Figure 4) and progression (e.g. 59/70, AQ 9 in Figure 4) in the number of participants who used the three elements will be treated in depth in the discussion section. Despite this evident coexistence of regression and progression, it is important to clarify that the fact that 24 out of the 70 participants were able to use the three elements in a rational and reasonable way to answer the ninth question (Q9 in Figure 3), is not a bad result. To illustrate this, consider the following paragraph written by U38 as response to Argumentative question 9 (Appendix 1):

1Fungi are classified within a kingdom in the eukaryotic domain due to several reproductive and cellular characteristics. 2Firstly, it is important to mention that fungi can be unicellular (like yeast) and multicellular, unlike plants and animals that are multicellular. 3Additionally, fungi have structures called hyphae, which make up the mycelium, that help them obtain nutrients through absorption. 4This characteristic is unique to fungal organisms because they can only get food by releasing enzymes to degrade what is surrounding them and then absorb it, whereas plants get nutrients through photosynthesis and by their roots and animals through internal digestion. 5Moreover, fungi can have symbiotic relations with cyanobacteria and/or algae to develop lichens or with plants' roots to form mycorrhiza. 6Therefore, they can obtain food by the photosynthetic process of its 'simbionte' [symbiont] while they can protect the algae or help the plant absorb more minerals, like phosphorus. 7Finally, they can reproduce sexually (where they have a dikaryotic phase, which is particular to these organisms) or asexually (where they reproduce by spores). 8However, they don't have gametangium or sporangium, so they don't reproduce sexually by gametes (except for Chytriomyces) but by positive and negative types of hyphae. 9Also, they never have diploidic tissues. 10In conclusion, fungi are eukaryotes that are similar to both plants and animals, but they are unique reproductively and cellularly (U38).

First, the majority of the biological ideas presented in U38's paragraph are scientifically valid. Second, the claim (line 1), the evidence (lines 2–9), and the arguments (lines 10) are communicated clearly. And, third, there is a good use of LCs throughout the paragraph (e.g. 'Firstly' in line 2, 'additionally' in line 3, 'moreover' in line 5, 'therefore' in line 6, 'finally' in line 7, 'however' in line 8, and 'in conclusion' in line 10). Arguably, this piece of evidence demonstrates that our FAPS provided U38 with opportunities to enrich their BSL. U38's paragraph also shows the importance of using LCs to articulate the claim: 'Fungi are classified into a kingdom in the eukaryotic domain due to several reproductive and cellular characteristics', the evidence (lines 2–9), and the scientific arguments (line 10). The following paragraph by U56 as response to the Argumentative question 7 (Appendix 1), is another example of the crucial role of LCs in articulating the three elements of written scientific argumentation:

Plants have evolved to reach new places and survive under various conditions. In this way, one of the methods used by plants to colonize new places is by generating spores which can be easily dispersadas [dispersed]. Additionally, these spores are quite protected to survive harsh conditions. Also, the alternance of generations of plants, increases the genetic variability, thus creating more diverse organisms. Having this in mind we can conclude that the alternance of generations has given plants the ability to increase their genetic pool and disperse widely with spores (U56, italics added).

U56 uses five LCs (in italics) at least. The LC, 'In this way', is used to connect the claim, 'plants have evolved to reach new places and survive under various conditions', with the evidence, which is then articulated to arguments through the LC, 'having this in mind'. The other LCs, 'additionally', 'also', and, 'thus', help U56 communicate the evidence in a clear way. In addition, the LCs used in U38's and U56's paragraphs, guide the reader(s) in effectively identifying their process of reasoning because their argumentation is communicated more clearly. The following paragraph is another example of this situation:

Some bacteria can have sexual reproduction. First of all, it is important to clarify that not all bacteria can reproduce sexually, but there are cases in which they can. One argument to prove this point is that some bacteria originate from other bacteria that has previously exchanged genetic information with another, therefore, having a mixed genotype from the parents (which is characteristic of sexual reproduction). On top of that, the presence of a pili in some bacteria can be the vehicle for transportation of information during sexual reproduction. Lastly, bacteria may evolve over generations as result of sexual reproduction. In conclusion, bacteria are really diverse organisms with multiple ways of reproduction (including sexual), which allowed them to survive over the years (U2, italics added).

This paragraph is the response of U2 to the Argumentative question 5 (Appendix 1). The way in which U2 uses LCs (in italics) in this paragraph may be questionable. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that s/he intentionally uses LCs to guide the reader through the process of reasoning communicated in the claim, the evidence, and the arguments of her/his paragraph. It should be pointed out that we are not idolizing U2's, U38's, and U56's paragraphs or considering them as perfect, we are just using them as examples to better illustrate how our pedagogical strategy helped these three students enrich the use of LCs as a critical aspect of BWSA.

Finally, our results suggest that our FAPS is not only realistic but also feasible. In other words, BWSA can be promoted without sacrificing student mastery of scientific knowledge. Much of the reason for this is that the results of the survey show that 60 out of the 69 participants who answered the survey considered that the feedback sessions were useful for their conceptual understanding of Biology (Question 10 in Appendix 2). Some of their reasons include: 'I used the feedback sessions to review concepts and to obtain more information', 'these sessions helped me understand the topics studied as well as to have access to another perspectives because we had the opportunity to listen to the argumentation of others', and 'I could understand concepts that were unclear for me. This helped me in the learning of the topics'. Moreover, 59 out of the 69 respondents of the survey considered that the feedback sessions were useful for their learning of scientific argumentation (Question 11 in Appendix 2). Some responses include: 'I learned new argumentative strategies, for example: the importance of clarifying my ideas', 'with each feedback, it was easier to understand the characteristics of an effective argumentative process', 'I became aware of the importance of the development of argumentative skills', and 'I strengthened my argumentative skills for my professional future'.

The participants' opinions about the FAPS are crucial to determine its strengths and weaknesses. Part three of the survey (Appendix 2) asked about participants' opinion about the Biology of Organisms course as a scenario to promote the use of LCs. Table 1 shows the participants' average scores along with the standard deviations on questions from 13 to 18. The maximum possible average score that could be scored in each item was 5. Our results indicate that the participants' average scores varied between 4.11 and 4.68 with a mean of 4.49, which clearly corresponds to the 'agree' choice. This outcome suggests that the students had positive opinions about the use of the Biology of Organisms course as scenario to promote the use of LCs. Table 1 also shows that participants scored the item 'The Biology of Organisms course helped me enrich my repertoire of LCs in Spanish' (Item 15 in Table 1) the least (4.11) and item 'The scientific writing in English should be promoted in other university courses as well' (Item 18 in Table 1) the most (4.68). This result corroborates the finding that writing in English should be assumed as a priority in the practice of tertiary education in countries where English is a foreign language.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of survey questions 13–18.

The present study was centered on promoting and examining the undergraduate students' BWSA as part of their BSL. In particular, we focused on LCs. One reason for this is that 'LCs are more difficult than other linguistic elements' (Asassfeh [17], 358). Thus, our study aimed to investigate the enrichment of the use of LCs throughout the implementation of a FAPS. To this end, we intervened a university Spanish-English bilingual Biology course in which participants received instruction in written scientific argumentation as well as in the use of LCs in Spanish and in English. Participants were asked to write argumentative paragraphs in Spanish and in English in response to argumentative questions. This study was driven by one question which asked about the potential of the FAPS to help undergraduates enrich the use of LCs in BWSA. To start with, an overview of the outcomes showed that the majority of the participants considered that the Biology of Organisms course helped them to improve their use of LCs. This is a contribution to recent literature that alerts to the need to create classroom scenarios in which students have the opportunity to enrich their use of LCs (Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros [11]; Cabrera-González, Abreu-Márquez, and Martínez-Abreu [23]; Chang and Lee [24]; Lahuerta Martínez [35]; Lin [37]; Quílez [49]).

Providing students with opportunities to enrich their use of LCs in two languages is a desirable and legitimate way to foster BWSA (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [14]). We found evidence (Figures 2–4) to support the viability of implementing our FAPS in a university bilingual science course without sacrificing student mastery of scientific knowledge. This corroborates previous research that has consistently shown that scientific content and target language learning are key elements of effective university bilingual education (Ai [1]; Airey and Larsson [2]; Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [13]; Liwanag and Labor [38]; Mazak [41]; Mazak and Herbas-Donoso [42], [43], [44]; Tong and Shi [55]; Van der Walt [56]). Arguably, the results of this study constitute an original contribution to the current body of research by providing evidence for exploring the combined approach of formative assessment and Spanish-English BWSA. Indeed, they indicate that the basic elements of the proposed FAPS (Figure 1) are a possible means of developing this combined approach.

A proper use of LCs is crucial for an effective process of reasoning communicated through written scientific argumentation (Sardà and Sanmartí [51]). Another relevant finding is that after having provided participants with ten opportunities to enrich their use of LCs though the development of ten argumentative paragraphs (4 in Spanish and 6 in English), the percentage of LCs used varied across the nine argumentative questions (Figure 2). This outcome reflects research in written argumentation, which indicates that the use of LCs requires training and practice (e.g. Archila [9], [10]; Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros [11]; Cabrera-González, Abreu-Márquez, and Martínez-Abreu [23]; Hamed [31]; Lahuerta Martínez [35]; Olshtain and Cohen [45]; Quílez [49]). Furthermore, the survey (Appendix 2) was useful to find that a significant number of participants acknowledged they had sufficient time for writing one argumentative paragraph each session (10-15 min to write in Spanish and 15–20 min to write in English). Thus, our outcomes confirm the claim that written argumentation is a time-consuming activity (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [13]; Chang and Lee [24]; Lahuerta Martínez [35]; Quílez [49]; Quílez-Díaz and Quílez-Pardo [48]). Clearly, this is an obstacle to the implementation of this type of activities in university bilingual science courses. That said, the results of this intervention show that devoting less time to scientific content presentation and more time to BWSA, and student-student and instructor-student oral interactions could be a way to deal with this obstacle. The reason for this is that a significant number of participants considered that feedback sessions were useful for their (1) learning of the use of LCs in Spanish-English bilingual scientific writing, (2) conceptual understanding of Biology, and (3) learning of scientific argumentation.

Secondly, as the students commented in the survey, the feedback sessions were a relevant means that enabled the instructor to better understand undergraduates' learning difficulties. Accordingly, in light of Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía's ([12]) work, our findings confirm that useful feedback is a key element of a FAPS. Here, there are three implications: (1) undergraduate students should be provided with opportunities to enrich their use of LCs (Cabrera-González, Abreu-Márquez, and Martínez-Abreu [23]); (2) bilingual science educators should help undergraduates become aware of the key role that LCs play on what counts as a high quality BWSA (Archila, Luna-Calderón, and Mesa-Piñeros [11]; Chang and Lee [24]; Quílez [49]; Quílez-Díaz and Quílez-Pardo [48]), and most importantly, (3) an interdisciplinary team of education professionals should guide instructors to receive training about how to promote bilingual writing; supporting them in the creation and selection of class activities suitable to provide students with opportunities to write in a bilingual teaching and learning scenario and to evaluate undergraduates' written bilingual productions and give them feedback (Archila and Truscott de Mejía [16]).

Thirdly, despite the fact that the argumentative questions (Appendix 1) effectively served as a platform for engaging students in BWSA, we found evidence of the coexistence of regression and progression in the number of participants who used the three basic elements (claim, evidence, and arguments) of written scientific argumentation (Figure 4). This is consistent with literature showing that BWSA is a complex activity that requires students' mastery in several aspects, such as: (1) academic language, (2) argumentation, (3) scientific knowledge, and (4) the use of LCs (e.g. Archila [8]; Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [13]; Bravo-Torija et al. [21]; Quílez [49]). In addition, our results (Figure 4) support the interdependence of literacy related skills and knowledge across languages theory proposed by Cummins ([26]). The reason is straightforward: the three basic elements of written scientific argumentation are common across languages (in our case, Spanish-English) and that makes possible the transfer of argumentative skills from one language to another. It is important to recall this aspect as part of the implementation of our FAPS (Figure 1). In the second class (first week), participants received instruction on how to (1) construct scientific argumentation, (2) use LCs in Spanish, and (3) become more conscious of why LCs are important in written scientific argumentation; and, then, in the fifth week they received instruction on how to use LCs in English.

Last but not the least, the results of the survey indicate that the students had positive opinions about the use of the Biology of Organisms course as a scenario to foster the use of LCs. These findings reflect the conclusion of previous studies (e.g. Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [12], [13], [14]) into the potential contribution of university bilingual science courses in the promotion of BSL, which suggest that using these courses as a scenario to enrich students' bilingual repertoires is an under-researched possibility in university bilingual science education. One important educational implication that can be drawn from this outcome is that universities around the world should start to become aware of educational policy considerations associated with the responsibilities and potential contributions of university bilingual science courses in the preparation of bilingual scientifically literate citizens.

Shirazi and Mousavi Nadoushani ([53]) situate writing as the most difficult skill to be learned by nonnative EFL learners. Furthermore, Asassfeh ([17]) considers that LCs are more difficult than other linguistic elements. It is therefore not surprising to accept as rational and reasonable Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía's ([14]) conclusion, that the promotion of BWSA is an ambitious educational goal which requires time and practice. Thus, it must be acknowledged that this study is not without its limitations. First of all, we spent ten weeks in the intervention. Clearly, this is not a sufficient length of time if we remember that the Biology of Organisms course is taught over a 15-week period. Therefore, longer interventions would be necessary to provide more robust evidence. Secondly, we only intervened in one university bilingual science course. It would be interesting to intervene in other bilingual courses and in other universities. Thirdly, it should also be noted that with a total of 70 participants, our small sample size only provides an initial and modest contribution. This issue does not allow us to make generalizations from our findings. Therefore, the outcomes and implications of our study should be considered as exploratory, preliminary, and tentative. While our study has limits, we consider that it is important to present these realistic and modest outcomes because undergraduates find very few opportunities in their university bilingual science courses to enrich their use LCs in written argumentation (Archila, Molina, and Truscott de Mejía [14]; Quílez [49]; Quílez-Díaz and Quílez-Pardo [48]).

Although conceived within the context of a university Spanish-English bilingual Biology course the FAPS presented here is applicable for a wider audience. Hence, the study presented in this article could be expanded in the future by including university bilingual courses from other disciplines, thus enlarging the corpus. A larger corpus would make it possible to draw more general conclusions regarding bilingual written argumentation and bilingual literacy. The FAPS reported in this article was designed to help students (1) enrich the use of LCS and (2) vary the repertoire of LCs they use, but it could be expanded to assist students in the explicit analysis of the logicality of the LCs they use. Further research is needed to examine the tentative findings of this study. It would be interesting, for instance, to examine whether and in what ways the repertoire of LCs and the BWSA skills developed in a university bilingual science course through the implementation of our FAPS are both used and are useful in the professional contexts in which the university students will be involved after graduating. By the same token, future bilingual pedagogical strategies should be based on the premise that 'on the one hand, connectors establish logical or semantic relations between parts of the text, and through this, on the other hand, they simultaneously establish the interaction between the author and the reader of the text, which is very important for interpreting the text in academic discourse' (Balažic Bulc and Gorjanc [19], 52).

The authors would like to thank Daniela Castro Esacandón, Edna Jessica Wilches Kochinski, and Laura Catalina Espitia Acero for their assistance in treating data. Also, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the undergraduate students at the Biology of Organisms course for participation in this study. Funding support from the Vice-Presidency of Research and Creation, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, is gratefully acknowledged.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Question 1 (diagnosis question), Part 1: What atom would you use to make the main skeleton of biomolecules? Write a paragraph in Spanish providing arguments for your answer.

Question 1 (diagnosis question), Part 2: What atom would you use to make the main skeleton of biomolecules? Write a paragraph in English providing arguments for your answer.

Question 2: Are viruses organisms? Write a paragraph in Spanish providing arguments for your answer.

Question 3: Considering the chemical structural organization of (1) prions, (2) virus ADN, (3) prokaryotes, and (4) eukaryotes, decide which of the trees below best represents their evolution. Write a paragraph in Spanish providing arguments for your answer.

Graph

Question 4: Which type of natural selection can be used to explain what is happening in Graph 2? Write a paragraph in Spanish providing arguments for your answer.

Graph

Question 5: Can bacteria reproduce sexually? Write a paragraph in English providing arguments for your answer.

Question 6: What is the origin of eukaryotic cells? Write a paragraph in English providing arguments for your answer.

Question 7: The figure below represents key points of alternation of generations that offer plants without seeds the possibility of reaching and surviving in environments different from those found today. Choose three points you consider are very relevant in this process. Write a paragraph in English providing arguments for your answer.

Graph

Question 8: A comparison between homosporic plants (e.g. moss) and a heterosporic plant (e.g. plant with flower) indicates a lower efficiency in the number of female gametophytes produced in one of the cases. Write a paragraph in English providing arguments for your answer.

Question 9: Within eukaryotes, fungi are organisms alive with very particular characteristics. What are those characteristics by which fungi can be considered a separate kingdom? Write a paragraph in English providing arguments for your answer.

1. Apart from the Biology of Organisms course, have you ever had received instruction in argumentation?

a. Yes

b. No

2. Apart from the Biology of Organisms course, have you ever had received instruction in the use of logical connectors (LCs) in Spanish?

a. Yes

b. No

3. Apart from the Biology of Organisms course, have you ever had received instruction in the use of LCs in English?

a. Yes

b. No

• 4. Do you consider that the Biology of Organisms course helped you improve your use of LCs? Explain why or why not.
• 5. Was the list of LCs in Spanish useful for you? Explain why or why not.
• 6. Was the list of LCs in English useful for you? Explain why or why not.
• 7. Did you have sufficient time for writing the argumentative paragraphs?

a. Yes

b. No

• 8. Do you consider that the Biology of Organisms course helped you gain confidence in your foreign language written skills? Explain why or why not.
• 9. How often do you have the opportunity to write in English in other university courses?

□ Very frequently □ Fairly frequently □ Infrequently □ Never

• 10. Were the feedback sessions useful for your conceptual understanding of Biology? Explain why or why not.
• 11. Were the feedback sessions useful for your learning of scientific argumentation? Explain why or why not.
• 12. Were the feedback sessions useful for your learning of the use of LCs in Spanish-English bilingual scientific writing? Explain why or why not.

How well do you agree with the following statements: (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) No comment, (4) Agree, and (5) Strongly agree.

Thank you for your participation!