Fourth and Fifth Graders Representing the Argument Structure in Written Texts

Chambliss, Marilyn J.; Murphy, P. Karen

doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3401_4

Cited by 53 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Chambliss and Murphy (2002) examined the extent to which fourth-and fifth-grade children are able to recover the global argument structure of a short text, and these researchers found a variety of levels of ability, from children who reduce their mental representation of the text to a simple list, up to a few who show evidence of appreciating the full abstract structure of the argument. Moreover, many of the linguistic elements deployed to signal discourse structure are not fully mastered until relatively late (Akiguet & Piolat 1996;Donaldson, 1986;Golder & Coirier, 1994).…”

Section: Mastery Of Textual Cues and Other Genre Conventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Deane

Odendahl

Quinlan

et al. 2008

ETS Research Report Series

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper undertakes a review of the literature on writing cognition, writing instruction, and writing assessment with the goal of developing a framework and competency model for a new approach to writing assessment. The model developed is part of the Cognitively Based Assessments of, for, and as Learning (CBAL) initiative, an ongoing research project at ETS intended to develop a new form of kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12) assessment that is based on modern cognitive understandings; built around integrated, foundational, constructedresponse tasks that are equally useful for assessment and for instruction; and structured to allow multiple measurements over the course of the school year. The model that emerges from a review of the literature on writing places a strong emphasis on writing as an integrated, socially situated skill that cannot be assessed properly without taking into account the fact that most writing tasks involve management of a complex array of skills over the course of a writing project, including language and literacy skills, document-creation and document-management skills, and critical-thinking skills. As such, the model makes strong connections with emerging conceptions of reading and literacy, suggesting an assessment approach in which writing is viewed as calling upon a broader construct than is usually tested in assessments that focus on relatively simple, on-demand writing tasks.

show abstract

Section: Mastery Of Textual Cues and Other Genre Conventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Deane

Odendahl

Quinlan

et al. 2008

ETS Research Report Series

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anderson, Chinn, Chang, Waggoner, & Yi, 1997;Orsolini, 1993;Stein & Miller, 1993) and in understanding the structure of an argument (Chambliss & Murphy, 2002).…”

Section: Argumentation Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding

Masón

Scirica

2006

Learning and Instruction

184

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, inquiries into the justification of knowledge, a dimension central to the philosophical study of epistemology, are much less evident in the psychological research. It would appear that we have to turn to the research on argumentation (e.g., Nussbaum and Sinatra, 2003), discussion (Murphy and Edwards, 2005), or evidence-based reasoning (e.g., Chambliss and Murphy, 2002) to get closer to studies of the justification condition-"how we know that we know." There is some trace of this dimension within the studies Muis et al and others have reviewed, but only a trace.…”

Section: Conceptual Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Would Dewey Say? Channeling Dewey on the Issue of Specificity of Epistemic Beliefs: A Response to Muis, Bendixen, and Haerle (2006)

Alexander

2006

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this response to Muis et al. (2006), I draw on the writings of Dewey to explore three critical questions. The first question is what is gained or what is lost when the study of epistemology moves from philosophy to psychology and eventually to educational practice? The second asks whether the primary question under examination should be if students' beliefs about knowledge or knowing differ by domains or why they may differ? Finally, what are the implications of the generality or specificity of students' epistemic beliefs for educational practice? KEY WORDS: beliefs; epistemology; knowledge.Within popular American culture, individuals occasionally use the catchphrase "What would X say?" or "What would X do?" Their purpose is to place their thoughts or actions or those of others within a specific theoretical, moral, or ethical framework; thereby reflecting on the suitability of those thoughts or actions for the situation at hand. Here I want to borrow from popular culture to situate my response to the Muis et al. (2006) review on the domain generality or domain specificity of epistemic beliefs in a broader philosophical/psychological context. Most who know me would not be particularly surprised that I have chosen John Dewey as my philosophical/psychological anchor for this commentary; hence the title "What

show abstract

Fourth and Fifth Graders Representing the Argument Structure in Written Texts

Cited by 53 publications

References 29 publications

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding

What Would Dewey Say? Channeling Dewey on the Issue of Specificity of Epistemic Beliefs: A Response to Muis, Bendixen, and Haerle (2006)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About