Instructional Chains as a Method for Examining the Teaching and Learning of Argumentative Writing in Classrooms

VanDerHeide, Jennifer; Newell, George E.

doi:10.1177/0741088313491713

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Context for data sources. We asked each teacher to name a significant event during instruction during our postobservation debriefings and used those events to create instructional chains (VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013) to represent the 150 min most critical to helping students be successful on their respective teacher-sponsored summative assessments (see Appendices B and C in the Online, supplementary archive). We selected events in which Ms. Houston's class analyzed the implied argument of an editorial cartoon where Santa appears ready to cut the head off a Thanksgiving turkey (Stahler, 2011) and in which Mr. Clark's class analyzed a sketch of a lunchroom murder (Hillocks, 2011) to determine the perpetrator.…”

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Construction of Warranting Evidence in Two Classrooms

Weyand

Goff

Newell

2018

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how instructional conversations revealed the ways two teachers' argumentative epistemologies (ideational and social process) shaped literacy events focused on the warranting of evidence. A microethnographic study of the literacy events within each teacher's respective instructional unit revealed that each teacher's epistemology shaped how students were asked to consider differing sources, relevancy, and sufficiency for warranting evidence within the context of writing extended argumentative essays. Events within an ideational epistemology required students to generate warrants as ideas to be applied to arguments in on-demand writing situations. Within a social process epistemology, students constructed warrants as a social practice appropriate for a specific rhetorical context. Each teacher supported his or her students in developing differing understandings of the nature of warranting. These findings highlight the importance of analyzing the teaching and learning of argumentative writing not only as written products of instruction but as a socialization into argumentative writing practices. Keywords writing, discourse/discourse analysis, teacher beliefs, English education We live in an era of Common Core State Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). "Critical thinking" and the ability to compose high-quality arguments (and their claims, warrants, and evidence) are essential skills for the academic success of high school students (

show abstract

Section: Data Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Construction of Warranting Evidence in Two Classrooms

Weyand

Goff

Newell

2018

Journal of Literacy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While research has addressed the epistemological values students attribute to the role of argumentation as a mode of reasoning (Kuhn, Wang, & Li, 2011), as well as how students’ argumentative practices are influenced by their learning contexts (Evagorou & Osborne, 2013; Hillocks, 2011; Kuhn, Hemberger, & Khait, 2016), little is known about the extent to which students’ tacit understandings of fundamental concepts such as fact and opinion influence their development as writers of academic argument. VanDerHeide and Newell (2013) posit a view of learning to write arguments as a process of recontextualizing argumentative practices over time and across contexts. This view follows from an understanding that students do indeed draw upon tacit understandings of what counts as an argument and what makes an argument effective.…”

Section: Background and Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“No Facts Equals Unconvincing”: Fact and Opinion as Conceptual Tools in High School Students’ Written Arguments

Imbrenda

2018

Written Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, I present a qualitative analysis of 11 writing portfolios drawn from a yearlong instructional program designed to apprentice students into the practices of argumentative writing typical of early-college coursework in the United States. The students' formal and informal writings were parsed into utterances and coded along two developmental dimensions: reciprocity, or the extent to which each utterance answered to the immediate context in which it was generated; and indexicality, or the extent to which each utterance evidenced modes of reasoning that reflect the conventions of academic argumentation. My analysis found that although students' writing evidenced a high degree of reciprocity, they frequently employed nonacademic modes of reasoning. Focusing on a subset of utterances, I show how their tacit orientations toward the concepts of fact and opinion limited the extent to which their reasoning satisfied the evidentiary expectations of formal academic discourse. This discovery suggests that students' development as writers of academic arguments is closely linked to their formal instruction in argumentative writing as well as to their tacit

show abstract

“…As mentioned previously, the study took place in the context of a larger design-based research project. A number of important studies of literacy instruction have been conducted in the context of design-based research involving highly regarded teachers (e.g., Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003;Bloome, 2015;Langer, 2001;Newell et al, 2014;VanDerHeide & Newell, 2013). In this tradition and with this broader research agenda in mind, observed teachers were recruited and selected as potential long-term partners.…”

Section: Sample Recruitment and Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies have suggested that instruction varies considerably, even when teachers are enacting the same intervention. A rare study of argumentation practices absent implementation of a specific intervention likewise found significant variation in how teachers understood and taught argumentative writing (Bloome, ; Newell et al., ; VanDerHeide & Newell, ). Thus, although studies have yielded important insights about variation in argumentation teaching and learning, we know of no studies to date that have examined the wide range of argumentation activities and tasks offered to middle and high school students across subject areas, absent implementation of a specific intervention.…”

Section: Theory and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Tasks in Secondary English Language Arts, History, and Science: Variations in Instructional Focus and Inquiry Space

Litman

Greenleaf²

2017

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study drew on observations of 40 secondary English language arts, history, and science lessons to describe variation in opportunities for students to engage in argumentation and possible implications for student engagement and learning. The authors focused their analysis on two broad dimensions of argumentation tasks: (1) Instructional focus categorized tasks as learning to argue, arguing to learn, or interactive argumentation focused on evaluating different possible meanings and interpretations of text. (2) Inquiry space described the degree to which the question, possible claims, and knowledge and skills needed to accomplish an argumentation task were predetermined. Findings point to task characteristics as a potentially powerful influence on instruction and resultant student engagement. Although most of the argumentation tasks focused on arguing to learn, the authors found that both arguing‐to‐learn and learning‐to‐argue tasks were frequently based on predetermined questions, answers, and content. In contrast, interactive argumentation was generally shaped by student questions and interpretations. Using contrasting illustrations from observed lessons, the authors theorize about the role of inquiry space in argumentation teaching and learning. Given that students’ interactive argumentation often revealed important argumentative reasoning, the authors argue for recognizing these activities as argumentation and exploring their potential in the development of argumentation literacy skills.

show abstract

Instructional Chains as a Method for Examining the Teaching and Learning of Argumentative Writing in Classrooms

Cited by 23 publications

References 36 publications

The Social Construction of Warranting Evidence in Two Classrooms

The Social Construction of Warranting Evidence in Two Classrooms

“No Facts Equals Unconvincing”: Fact and Opinion as Conceptual Tools in High School Students’ Written Arguments

Argumentation Tasks in Secondary English Language Arts, History, and Science: Variations in Instructional Focus and Inquiry Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About