Adaptive Expertise for Teaching Argumentative Writing in High School English Language Arts Classrooms

• In Event: Adaptive Expertise for Teaching in Academic Domains: Argumentative Writing, Literature, Collaborative Problem Solving, and Technology-Based Inquiry

Abstract

Objectives

The goal of this study is to propose a hybrid (social and cognitive) model of adaptive expertise for teaching argumentative writing that integrates a social practice perspective (Gee, 1990; Street, 1993) and a cognitive perspective (Crawford et al., 2005). We will first illustrate how we provided 8 ELA teachers professional development to develop adaptive expertise in teaching argumentative writing. Two specific research questions will then be addressed: (1) How did teachers reveal their adaptive expertise when they analyzed two hypothetical scenarios regarding two dimensions: a. cognitive inquiry of instructional issues, b. appropriation of social practice principles? (2) How did teachers’ adaptive expertise vary by their argumentative epistemologies?

Theoretical Framework

Adaptive expertise for teaching argumentative writing can be defined as [a] the dexterity to navigate resources and social interactions to identify, decode, and resolve problems occurred in the process of teaching and learning argumentative writing, and [b] the adaptability to variable social practices rooted in particular worldviews and social structures. We are particularly interested in how teachers’ argumentative epistemologies, defined as teachers’ beliefs about what constitute teaching and learning of argumentative writing, influence their adaptive development (Newell & VanDerHeide, 2014).

Methods

This ongoing study included eight high school ELA teachers in the Midwestern United States. Over the school year, the eight teachers participated in professional development activities (e.g., summer workshop) to work collaboratively with researchers to develop new ways of teaching and learning argumentative writing. Each teacher participated in a semi-structured adaptive expertise interview at the beginning and end of the school year and were asked to identify, analyze, and interpret instructional issues from two hypothetical scenarios. The same scenarios were used in the pre- and post-interviews.

Transcribed pre- and post-interviews of adaptive expertise were analyzed based on two integrated multidimensional coding schemes. With the coding schemes, we examined changes in how the teachers diagnosed instructional problems in the scenarios, and how teachers’ judgment or solutions reveal conceptual appropriation of the social practice principles for teaching argumentative writing. Teachers were classified as having structural-focused or social process-focused argumentative epistemologies based on classroom observation logs and fieldnotes.

Results

Findings suggest that adaptive expertise for teaching argumentative writing is revealed in changes in teachers’ ability to consider complexities of instructional issues and to critically evaluate their thought processes and solutions pertaining to the problems. All teachers appropriated some social practice principles when analyzing the scenarios, suggesting the effectiveness of the professional development. Teachers with structural epistemologies presented less integrated and complex cognitive inquiry, and less conceptual appropriation of the principles compared to teachers with social process epistemologies.

Scholarly Significance

The analysis of teachers’ inquiry process and conceptual appropriation of 11 principles for teaching argumentative writing may contain the seeds of a more fundamental transformation in the nature of teaching and learning. In some classrooms, at least, the introduction of these principles changed the role of the teacher and the role of the student, leading to more emphasis on students' own interpretations and on their engagement in the process of learning.

Authors

• Tzu-Jung Lin, The Ohio State University

• George E. Newell, The Ohio State University

• Eileen Shanahan, Eastern Kentucky University

• Seung Yon Ha, The Ohio State University

• Ming-Yi Hsieh, The Ohio State University