Rationality in the Teaching and Learning of Argumentative Writing: A Microethnographic Study of the Hidden Curriculum

• In Event: Researching the Promise and the Challenges of Teaching and Learning Argumentation Across the Disciplines

Abstract

Purpose

In this paper we ask, “What counts as rationality in the teaching and learning of argumentative writing?” Answering this question reveals part of the hidden curriculum of classroom education.

Theoretical Framing

This paper employs two theoretical frameworks. The first involves philosophical debates about the nature of rationality (see diverse definitions by Aristotle, 1999; Flyvbjerg, 2000; Habermas, 1984; Kant, 1982; Searle, 2001; among others). We use the philosophical stance of Bakhtin (1993) to organize the definitions of rationality. At issue is the degree to which context is considered and the degree to which definitions are viewed as driving how people act versus how practical and material circumstances drive how people act. The second theoretical framework guides the conduct of the study and derives from microethnographic discourse analysis and interactional sociolinguistics (cf., Bloome, et al., 2005; Erickson, 2004; Green & Wallat, 1981; Gumperz, 1986).

Data Sources and Methods

We focus on four secondary English language arts (ELA) classrooms pulled from a broader study. We observed and video recorded an instructional unit on argumentative writing in each classroom, interviewed the teachers and students, and collected student writing. The classrooms differed in demographics (urban v suburban, working class v. middle class) and stated purpose (access to college v. access to elite colleges). Instructional conversations from each classroom were transcribed and analyzed to reveal recurrent patterns regarding what counted as an acceptable argument and how rationality was defined. Analysis focused on how teachers and students acted and reacted to each other through language (and related semiotic modes) and the intertextual frames constructed. Student written work was examined for indications of uptake of the instructional conversations and teachers and students were interviewed to reveal their interpretations of what happened during the instructional unit and their understanding of what counts as an argument.

Findings

Findings reveal differences in definitions of rationality. In one classroom, rationality was defined as a monolithic system. Arguments existed in contested zones and rationality was defined as warranting evidence to support one’s claim while dismissing another’s claim. Definitions of rationality stood at a distance from the students’ lives outside the classroom. In the second classroom, what counted as a rational argument was influenced by the students’ lived experiences outside the classroom. Claims needed to be supported by logic, evidence, and they had to resonate as valid within the contexts of the students’ non-academic lives. Consequently, the teacher and students had to negotiate a relationship between decontextualized and contextualized definitions of rationality. In the third classroom argument was presented as a general framework for thinking and acting. Rationality was the taking up of particular intellectual processes in which one constructed and warranted intertextual relationships leading to an interpretation of texts, events, and ethics. In the fourth classroom, the teacher had an explicit focus on rationality as diversely defined and as engagement in rationality as the construction of new knowledge and insight. Students took up this stance to different degrees.

Authors

• David M. Bloome, The Ohio State University

• SangHee Ryu, The Ohio State University - Columbus

• Allison S. Wynhoff Olsen, Montana State University