Argumentation in the Presence and Absence of Text

• In Event: Examining Student Opportunity to Learn to New Literacy Standards and Assessments in Diverse Settings

Abstract

Purpose
The CCSS promote argumentation as a performance of advanced literacy across subject areas. However, the CCSS are silent on the pedagogical means by which students learn to argue. This paper analyzes materials and classroom discourse from two high school history lessons to explore the role of text in argumentation. Our questions focused on how argumentation was conceptualized, and what, if any, differences there were between tasks that provided students an opportunity to grapple with texts to make meaning, and tasks in which teachers delivered information for arguments. We explored the impact these different approaches had on student OTL.

Theoretical Framework
In disciplines where text plays a central role in knowledge building, close reading informs disciplinary discourse and argumentation (Chinn & Anderson, 1998; Hillocks, 2010; Monte-Sano & De La Paz, 2012; Reisman, 2012). Nonetheless, the practice of using text as the foundation for argumentation in schools is uncommon (Schwarz & Asterhan, 2010) and conclusions about students’ abilities to engage in argumentation in classroom contexts are largely based on studies of argumentation that occur absent reading and text (e.g., Asterhan & Schwarz, 2009; Von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008).

Data Sources and Methods
For a study of argumentation practices, we investigated argumentation tasks that occurred in 71 middle and high school lessons taught by highly-regarded ELA, history, and science teachers in California and Illinois prior to any intervention. Using an observation protocol designed for this purpose, we observed and recorded each lesson. We then carried out a descriptive analysis to generate preliminary codes for analysis of OTL. We refined codes and analyzed the entire data set, working from the video recordings. We found that argumentation tasks were rare, but when they were assigned, they were often coupled with close reading and cross-textual analysis (Authors, 2014a). However, many argumentation tasks occurred in lessons that did not involve close reading of text. To explore the implications of argumentation with and without text, we identified two contrasting high school history lessons for closer analysis (Erickson, 1982; Norris, 2002; Ochs, 1979). This presentation focuses on the analysis of these contrasting lessons.

Findings
Opportunities to actively engage in reading and sensemaking during argumentation impacted the quality of student discussion and engagement. Absent active engagement with reading, students were unable to form the principled representation of text required for disciplinary knowledge-building, and they lacked the skills and processes characteristic of disciplinary argumentation (Norris & Phillips, 2003). In addition, the way teachers framed argumentation tasks shaped student willingness and opportunity to engage with multiple perspectives.

Conclusions
While argumentation can serve as an engine to shift the intellectual work from teachers to students, the contrasting lessons analyzed here suggest that opportunities to engage in argumentation are not equal. In particular, argumentation tasks in which teachers modify, read aloud, and direct access to information cannot be assumed to positively impact students’ advanced literacy learning. These findings are important for understanding how to successfully engage students in disciplinary reasoning practices, such as those outlined in the CCSS.

Authors

• Cindy Litman, WestEd

• Stacy A. Marple, WestEd

• Cynthia L. Greenleaf, WestEd