1.Social and Cognitive Influences in Teaching Argumentative Texts Mary Ann Reilly

2. Tasks1. Define argumentive discourse and writing, clarifying differences btw argument and persuasion.2. Examine quasi-experimental research related to argumentive discourse with 8th graders.3. Examine case study of teaching argumentive writing in 7th grade.4. Make use of reading strategy, Say Something. 3. Thinking and Middle Schoolers "[A]bove all else... middle grades schools mustbe about helping all students learn to usetheir minds well" (p. 11), and "The main purpose of middle gradeseducation is to promote young adolescentsintellectual development." (p. 10)From: Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century.New York: Teachers College Press. 4. Why Argument? Constructing arguments (Voss & Wiley, 1997;Wiley & Voss, 1999; Zohar & Nemet, 2002)and engaging in argumentive discussion(Mason, 1998, 2001) enhance conceptualunderstanding of subject matter in school-age children, as well as college students. From Kuhn &Udell, 2003. 5. Persuasion and Argument1. Same Goals: To convince, to defend, to question2. Different Methods: Persuasion: Built on logos, pathos, and/orethos Argument: Built on logical models that includeclaim, reasons, evidence, anticipatedobjections and rebuttal 6. Goals of Argument According to Walton (1989), skilledargumentation has two goals.1. Secure commitments from the opponent that can be used to support ones own argument.2. Undermine the opponents position by identifying and challenging weaknesses in his or her argument. 7. Challenges for Adolescents RegardingArgument Adolescents are:1. unlikely to construct two-sided arguments2. to distinguish evidence and explanation in support of their claims(Kuhn &Udell, 2003) 8. Parts of an Argument(Toulmin Method)1. Claim: General statement, assertion upon which the argument is based2. Reasons: Why does a writer believe the claim s/he makes? The reasons a writer gives are the first line of development of any argument.3. Evidence: Facts, examples, statistics, expert testimony, among others--to back up our reasons4. Anticipated Objections & Rebuttals: What might others object too and how does the author rebut those objections? (*Most often not attended to by adolescents)5. Drawing Conclusions: Statement about the effectiveness of the argument by reader 9. Developing Argumentative Discourse Academically at-risk middle-school students engage in a ten-weekdebate activity focused on the topic of capital punishment. Basedon their initial pro v. con opinions, students are assigned to a 4-6person team who share their opinion and with whom they workuntil near the end of the project. The social goal that unites and energizes the team is preparation fora final "show-down" debate activity against a team holding theopposing opinion. Assessments preceding and following the activity are based on a students individual argument in support of a pro or con opinion, forboth the capital punishment topic and a new, transfer topic, a sample of argumentive discourse between two students holdingopposing opinions, again on both the capital punishment topic and anew topic. Initial results indicate significant progress in the quality ofboth individual argument and argumentive discourse following theactivity. 10. Developing Argumentative Discourse 34 academically at-risk eighth-grade students attendingtwo low-performing, inner-city public middle schools inNew York City. Students were organized into Pro and Con teams concernedcapital punishment based on student survey results.Experimental & Control group. Pre/Post Assessment designed to examine sophistication ofargument (single to dual, reduction in expository response ) Each team worked with an adult for two 90-minute lessonsper a week for 8 weeks building argumentative discourseskills that are displayed during debate/showdown. Controlgroup worked w/ adult for 7 of the 16 sessions. 11. Pair Teams: Pro and Con of a Claim1. Generating Reasons2. Supporting Reasons with Evidence3. Evaluating Reasons4. Developing Reasons into an Argument5. Examining and Evaluating Opposing Sides Reasons6. Generating Counterarguments to Others Reasons7. Generating Rebuttal to Others Reasons8. Contemplating Mixed Evidence9. Contemplating & Evaluating Two Evidence (Rehearsal)10. Showdown 12. Say Something1. With a partner engage in Say Something as you read from pages 1248 (beginning with Intervention) to 1251 (ending at Results) . Stop after each section (Delineated by subheadings) and say something about what you have read.2. Be ready to debrief about what you read and the experience in 10 minutes. 13. Results Researchers coded students utterances duringshowdown as simple disagreement (with what the partner hassaid), disagreement accompanied by an alternateargument, and disagreement accompanied by a critique of thepartners utterance. Increased production in all categories. 14. Example of Pre/Post Initial assessment: If someone did something wrong, they should besubject to capital punishment. (Why is that?) Because for instance ifthey kill someone, maybe the same thing is due to them. (Any otherreason?) Well, I feel that people should pay if they did somethingwrong. Final assessment: If someone goes out and kills another personthey should receive a justified punishment, an equal punishment.So that if they killed someone then they should receive the samething. But I can also see how other people can have a differentopinion because not everyone thinks the same and they may feelthat its wrong to kill another person, that people deserve a secondchance. But personally I feel that if you have enough nerve to goout and kill somebody else, well then you just deserve to be killedas well. (Okay, anything else?) Well, one of the reasons why I havethis opinion is that Ive seen where facts have shown that capitalpunishment has reduced crime. And I always think that less crimewill make a better life for everyone. 15. argument skills develop and that engagementin an argumentive discourse activity enhancesthat development (Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kuhnet al., 1997). such advancement can beobserved not only in the arguments that anindividual constructs in support of a claim butalso in the quality of argumentive discoursegenerated in peer dialogues (Kuhn &Udell, p.1255). 16. Developing Demands in Orally Arguing & Listening to Argument as per CCSSSL.6.3. Delineate aSL.7.3. Delineate a SL.8.3. Delineate aspeakers argument andspeakers argument and speakers argument andspecific claims,specific claims, evaluatingspecific claims, evaluatingdistinguishing claims thatthe soundness of the the soundness of theare supported by reasonsreasoning and thereasoning and relevanceand evidence from claimsrelevance and sufficiency of and sufficiency of thethat are not. the evidence.evidence and identifyingSL.6.4. Present claims and SL.7.4. Present claims andwhen irrelevant evidence isfindings, sequencing ideasfindings, emphasizingintroduced.logically and using pertinent salient points in a focused, SL.8.4. Present claims anddescriptions, facts, andcoherent manner with findings, emphasizingdetails to accentuate mainpertinent descriptions,salient points in a focused,ideas or themes; usefacts, details, andcoherent manner withappropriate eye contact,examples; use appropriaterelevant evidence, soundadequate volume, and cleareye contact, adequatevalid reasoning, and well-pronunciation.volume, and clearchosen details; usepronunciation. appropriate eye contact, adequate volume, and clear pronunciation. 17. Developing Demands in Writing Argument as per CCSSW.6.1. Write arguments to support W.7.1. Write arguments toW.8.1. Write arguments toclaims with clear reasons andsupport claims with clear reasons support claims with clear reasonsrelevant evidence. and relevant evidence.and relevant evidence.Introduce claim(s) and organize Introduce claim(s), acknowledgeIntroduce claim(s), acknowledgethe reasons and evidence clearly.alternate or opposing claims, and and distinguish the claim(s) fromSupport claim(s) with clear reasons organize the reasons and evidence alternate or opposing claims, andand relevant evidence, using logically.organize the reasons and evidencecredible sources and demonstrating Support claim(s) with logicallogically.an understanding of the topic or reasoning and relevant evidence,Support claim(s) with logicaltext.using accurate, credible sourcesreasoning and relevant evidence,Use words, phrases, and clauses toand demonstrating anusing accurate, credible sourcesclarify the relationships amongunderstanding of the topic or text. and demonstrating anclaim(s) and reasons.Use words, phrases, and clauses to understanding of the topic or text.Establish and maintain a formal create cohesion and clarify the Use words, phrases, and clauses tostyle. relationships among claim(s), create cohesion and clarify theProvide a concluding statement or reasons, and evidence.relationships among claim(s),section that follows from theEstablish and maintain a formalcounterclaims, reasons, andargument presented.style.evidence. Provide a concluding statement orEstablish and maintain a formal section that follows from and style. supports the argument presented.Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented. 18. Developing Demands in Reading Argument as per CCSSRI.6.8. Trace andRI.7.8. Trace and RI.8.8. Delineate andevaluate the argument evaluate the argumentevaluate the argumentand specific claims in aand specific claims in a and specific claims in atext, distinguishingtext, assessing whethertext, assessing whetherclaims that are supported the reasoning is sound the reasoning is soundby reasons and evidence and the evidence isand the evidence isfrom claims that are not. relevant and sufficient to relevant and sufficient;support the claims.recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced. 19. What Types of Instruction Support theArgumentative Thinking? Kuhn et al. (1997) and Lao and Kuhn (2002)have shown that extended engagement inargumentative discourse, in the absence ofany additional instruction, is a sufficientcondition for enhancement of the quality ofarguments produced by individuals followingdiscourse. 20. Nystrand & Graff (2001) Argumentation, especially, is an arduous and dialogicprocess of response to others, on the onehand, andanticipation of response, on the other. Skilled writersknow how to peer over theirshoulders, as it were,while pushing on with their own ideas. The writersinterlocutors henceplay a key role in the ostensiblyprivate act of writing, contributing to its developmentbyelaborating different positions and by questioningand disagreeing with ideas the writer proposes.Yetthese processes are often short-circuited whenknowledge is routinely treated, as it is inmanyclassrooms, as a givenfixed, and found in texts (p.7). 21. Task 1 Examine the transcript between the 7th gradeteacher and the student. (Handout) Based on the transcript, what do you think thestudent is learning? What makes you say so? 22. Task #2 Examine the Teachers Instruction: What doesshe believe will best guide student writing/thinking? I was telling you before that when you write . . . a solid paragraph, youhave amain idea here, and then you support it with details, . . . and themore details youhave, the stronger that topic sentence is gonna be. Right?Okay. So heres myquestion to you: If you have your thesis and yourassertions chart filled out andyoure writing an introduction, can you dothis? We will use this as a paragraph.Lets take . . . all the information youhave, and youre going to write a draft ofyour paper. In your introduction,is it possible for you to have your table top beyour thesis statement andassertions one, two, and three? Okay? So, in yourintroduction, your thesissentence is either going to be your, generally, its eitherthe first or lastsentence of a paragraph in your introduction. And, in yourintroduction,youre also gonna state, just state your assertions. . . . So essentially,yourpaper could be 5 paragraphs in length. It could be an introduction, inwhichyou state your assertions. It could be assertion one and the details,assertion twoand the details, assertion three and the details, and a wrap-up, a conclusion. . . .now if you follow that format, which I think is easy tofollow. . . . [3/2/98, from Nystrand & Graff, 2001 ] 23. Consider this questionWhat happens to student learning when ateachers comments and actions move themtowards closure rather than opening dialog?Is completing the assignment more importantthan learning? 24. Directions from teacher to students inkeeping a double entry notebook. [T]his is what things I personally thought aboutthe book, and you can say, "Oh,this book isawfulI dont like it, Im bored, I cant relate tothe characters." Youare certainly free to saywhatever you honestly feel about the book, sojust makesure you kind of back it with why. Dontjust say [its not a good book]thats notenough.. . . I wrote, "Dear whoever-I-was-talking-to,Things must have beenawful, This is hard to read,Awful for that boy to have run away. What doyouthink he is hoping to find in the city? Is hegoing to meet someone?" [1/27/98] 25. Intellectual Environment Matters The type of activities that happen in the classroominfluence how well students think. How the complexdemands of a large modern classroomconfigurewriting and reading activities can inhibit theepistemology of argument. In the 9 weeks researchers observed (in blocks of two55-minute classes back to back), not 1 ofthe total 4,950minutes was given over to discussion in any extendedform (they defined discussionas the free exchange ofinformation among students and/or between at least 3students and theteacher that lasted at least a halfminute). 26. Summary the idea of writing as argument implychanges not only instudent products but alsoin the overall teaching practices ofclassrooms. A few changes inwritinginstruction, while important, may not have thedesired results if the dominantepistemologyof the classroom derails the instructional goalsfor writing (Nystrand& Graff, 2001). 27. Recommended Next Steps During Summer 2012, develop a unit of studyappropriate for middle school that:1. Emphasizes thinking related to argument2. Emphasizes argumentive discourse3. Provides teachers and students with scaffolded approach to discussing and writing argumentive text4. Connects talking and writing with reading/analyzing argumentive text5. Is ready to implement for 2012-2013 SY Deeply improve one practice in order toleverage excellence when you are not present. 28. Works CitedFelton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135- 153Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College Press.Kuhn, D. &Udell, V. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74( 5), 1245-1260.Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.Lao, J., & Kuhn, D. (2002). Cognitive engagement and attitude development. Cognitive Development, 17, 1203- 1217.Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school contexts: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389.Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. In L. Mason (Ed.), Instructional practices for conceptual change in science domains. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329.Nystrand, M. & Graff, N. (2001). Report in arguments clothing. An ecological perspective on writing instruction in a seventh-grade classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 479-493.Voss, J., & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding while writing essays in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 255-265.Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169-184.Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students know-edge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.