Theoretical framework. Higher education students all around the world are expected to learn various skills needed in working life during their studies. These skills include field-specific but also so-called generic skills that are needed in all kinds of disciplines, not only after graduation but also during higher education studies in learning and utilizing field-specific knowledge (see Tuononen et al., 2022; Ursin et al., 2021). As a term, ‘generic skills’ refer here especially to higher-order thinking skills such as argumentation skills  (Tuononen et al., 2022).

Argumentation, and especially written argumentation, has been seen as one of the key generic skills that higher education students need both in their studies and future working life (see e.g., Rapanta et al., 2013; Wingate, 2012). ‘Argumentation’ is broad as a concept and its research has roots in several different approaches (Rapanta et al., 2013). In this study argumentation is defined as actions through which arguments, that is, claims or conclusions together with reasons supporting them, are presented (e.g., Sampson & Clark, 2008; Toulmin, 2003). Arguments are thus seen here more as ‘forms’ rather than ‘strategies’ in dialogical contexts or ‘goals’, i.e. whole processes with certain objectives (Rapanta et al., 2013, pp. 489–491), that are developed and presented especially in writing (Rapanta & Macagno, 2016; see also the method section below).

It has been noted that such form approach to argumentation is commonly related to written argumentation tasks in educational research (Rapanta et al., 2013). Different purposes may be set for written argumentation, but above all, higher education students need these skills in their studies, for example, to perform various tasks such as source-based writing assignments (see e.g., Marttunen & Kiili, 2022; Wingate, 2012). Previous studies have found that producing high-quality arguments can be challenging for some higher education students. For example, students may struggle in their position-taking (Kleemola et al., 2022) or supporting their conclusions with sufficient and relevant reasons (Hyytinen et al., 2017). Indeed, the quality of written argumentation can be examined, for example, by the extent to which claims or conclusions included in arguments are supported from different perspectives, i.e. on the basis of sufficiency and extensiveness of reasons, and/or according to how accurate reasons or how clearly claims or conclusions are presented (e.g., Fulkerson, 1996; Marttunen & Kiili, 2022; Toulmin, 2003; see also Rapanta et al. 2013; Sampson & Clark, 2008). Studies on higher education students’ written argumentation have often focused more on beginning students and therefore more information on final-stage students’ argumentation skills is needed.

Objectives. This study aims to examine Finnish final-stage undergraduate (i.e., third year) students’ written argumentation skills. In particular, the study analyzes the quality of written argumentation and variation in it between students from different higher education sectors, that is, research-intensive universities and universities of applied sciences. The study attempts to answer the following research questions: 1) What is the quality of written argumentation in final-stage undergraduate students’ responses to the CLA+ performance task from the point of view of the a) clarity of claim and b) reliability, c) relevance, d) sufficiency and e) extensiveness of the reasons included in the arguments? and 2) What kind of variation is there in the quality of written argumentation among students from different higher education sectors?

Context The Finnish higher education system includes two different types of institutions, universities and universities of applied sciences (UASs). There are currently 14 universities and 24 UASs in Finland. These two HE sectors have differences in their core missions, with universities focusing on scientific research and teaching based on it, while UASs offer practical education aimed to respond the needs stemming from working life (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2025). Instrument A test instrument called Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+) International was utilized in this study. The CLA+ is a performance-based assessment intended to measure HE students’ generic skills, in particular analysis and problem-solving, argumentation, and written communication skills. It includes two main sections: a written performance task (PT) and a set of selected-response questions (Zahner et al., 2022). Additionally, there is a background survey at the end of the test. Originally a US-based instrument was carefully translated and adapted to the Finnish context (Ursin et al., 2021). The CLA+ has been widely used in the US and also internationally in assessing HE students’ generic skills (see e.g., Van Damme & Zahner, 2022). Participants, data collection, and analysis The data used in this study includes the written PT responses (n = 200) of final-stage undergraduate students from both HE sectors (n university = 93, n UAS = 107). The PT requires, for example, the ability to evaluate information from different sources, draw conclusions and give them justifications, that is, argumentation skills (Ursin et al., 2021). Based on the PT total score, the 100 weakest and the 100 best responses were selected for the sub-sample to examine the quality of written argumentation in responses at different levels. The data were collected in a larger national research project investigating HE students’ generic skills (Ursin et al., 2021). The ethical principles of research with human participants were followed in the data collection (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, 2019). A theory-driven content analysis is utilized to answer the research questions. The quality of written argumentation is analyzed from the perspectives of the clarity of claim and the reliability, relevance, sufficiency, and extensiveness of reasons included in arguments (e.g., Fulkerson, 1996; Marttunen & Kiili, 2022). The PT assignment included two different argumentative tasks, one that required analyzing the reasons given in the task’s source materials and the other that required producing a claim and giving it justifications. The quality of argumentation is analyzed separately from these two perspectives.

The expected outcomes can only be discussed here as this research is still a work in progress. However, preliminary findings show that there is variation in the quality of written argumentation in final-stage undergraduate students’ CLA+ performance task responses. Most of the responses were quite good from the point of view of the analysis criteria describing the quality of written argumentation, but there were also shortcomings, for example in clearly stating claims or using sufficient, reliable, and/or relevant reasons to support claims. These findings indicate that some students have difficulties in such generic skills as written argumentation (see also Kleemola et al., 2022; Ursin et al., 2021), even after several years of higher education studies where these skills could be assumed to have been used and even developed. This raises the question of how such universally needed skills as argumentation could be better supported in higher education, including at the later stage of studies. Based on the preliminary findings, variation in the quality of written argumentation seems also to distribute in different ways to different higher education sectors, with the quality of university students’ argumentation being better than that of UAS students. This is also in line with previous findings (Ursin et al., 2021), calling to consider what kind of skills are seen important in different higher education institutions and whether, for example, written argumentation skills examined in this particular study are one of the key learning outcomes that final-stage undergraduate students are expected to have on the threshold of graduation. The findings of this study will be discussed in more detail in the presentation from the perspectives of the above-mentioned issues as well as higher education pedagogy.

Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland. Publications of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK 3/2019. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/Ihmistieteiden_eettisen_ennakkoarvioinnin_ohje_2019.pdf Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. National Council of Teachers of English. Hyytinen, H., Löfström, E., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2017). Challenges in argumentation and paraphrasing among beginning students in educational sciences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1147072 Kleemola, K., Hyytinen, H., & Toom, A. (2022). The challenge of position-taking in novice higher education students’ argumentative writing. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.885987 Marttunen, M., & Kiili, C. (2022). Supporting university students’ argumentative source-based writing. Written Language & Literacy, 25(2), 228–252. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00068.mar Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606 Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2016). Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276 The Ministry of Education and Culture. (2025). Higher education institutions, science agencies, research institutes and other public research organisations. The Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. https://okm.fi/en/heis-and-science-agencies Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Kleemola, K., Hailikari, T., Männikkö, I., & Toom, A. (2022). Systematic review of learning generic skills in higher education – Enhancing and impeding factors. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.885917 Ursin, J., Hyytinen, H., & Silvennoinen, K. (Eds.). (2021). Assessment of undergraduate students' generic skills in Finland : Findings of the Kappas! project. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture 2021:31. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-901-1 Van Damme, D., & Zahner. D. (Eds.). (2022). Does Higher Education Teach Students to Think Critically? OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cc9fa6aa-en Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001 Zahner, D., Dawber, T., & Rotholz, K. (2022). The Collegiate Learning Assessment – a performance-based assessment of generic skills. In D. Van Damme, & D. Zahner (Eds.), Does higher education teach students to think critically? (pp. 39–60). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org./10.1787/6c58ae81-en