Constraints and Affordances of Writing Disciplinary Arguments

• In Event: Writing Disciplinary Arguments: Theoretical and Instructional Considerations

Abstract

The purpose of this poster is to discuss the affordances of and constraints on disciplinary argumentation in an era of increasing polarization and partisan attacks on the processes of education. Argumentation can be used to accomplish many different purposes, including persuading, cajoling, negotiating, consulting, and debating (Walton, 1992). However, its core educational function is to inculcate the ethical dispositions and disciplinary skills needed to promote democratic participation and public communication about controversial issues (Dewey, 1916; Author, 2007).

Argumentative discourse is inherently rhetorical, and as such, is affected by pragmatic considerations (Authors, 2017; van Eemeren, 2010; van Eemeren, & Houtlosser, 2009). Not surprisingly, then, the socio-cultural context within which controversies are situated influence people's argumentative strategies and the evidentiary standards used to adjudicate claims. The later point is especially salient in the current moment. While incivility, intolerance, and political polarization is found in every era of the American republic (Arendt, 1972; Rodin & Steinberg, 2003), the emergence of post-truth (Frankfurt, 2005; McIntyre, 2018) and the ascent of undemocratic attitudes and practices (Pendharker, 2021; Schwartz, 2021) raise serious questions about cultural and institutional commitments to promoting students' capacity for reasonable argumentation.

The current socio-cultural context exacerbates the effects of cognitive biases that militate against reasonable argumentation. People are not only more receptive to information that accords with their perspective (Perkins, Faraday, & Bushey, 1991), they are more likely to believe and confirm it (Kahneman, 2003). In fact, the process of comprehending a proposition entails an intuitive acceptance of its believability (Gilbert, 1991). Assessing the truthfulness of a belief and correcting falsehoods is an effortful epistemic process (Kahneman, 2003; 2011) that requires engagement in "unnatural" acts (Wineburg, 2001). The ready availability of misinformation in our social networks amplifies the effects of my-side bias (Kahneman, 2011; Pachur, Hertwig, & Steinmann, 2012).

Not surprisingly, these qualities often appear is people's written argumentation (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). For example, the 2012 NAEP Writing Report Card (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012) showed that only about 25% of students’ argumentative essays are competent. Competent essays usually develop strong reasons and provide supporting examples, but the support is not always effective, and they often fail to consider alternative perspectives. Evidence for my-side bias is widely found in the writing literature (Authors, 2017).

This finding is disconcerting because sophisticated literacy skills are increasingly important for school and work (Authors, 2011; Biancrosa & Snow, 2006; Graham & Perin, 2007). Literacy and content-area learning become interlinked with development, so success in school and the workplace depends upon the application of disciplinary knowledge and skills (Authors, 2011). In short, as students develop, they are expected to evaluate and make interpretative claims by applying disciplinary strategies and evaluative standards.

This poster will discuss the theoretical and instructional implications (Authors, 2019; 2019) of viewing argumentative writing through a disciplinary lens. The discussion will be situated within the broader context of contemporary socio-cultural influences on oral and written argumentative discourse that affect the receptivity to and acceptability of different perspectives.

Author

• Ralph P. Ferretti, University of Delaware