An Asset-Based, Ethnographic Examination of Argument Writing Among Latina/o Elementary Students

• In Event: 58.034 - Putting Policy Into Perspective: Exposing Racializing Discourses Through Explorations of Minoritized Students' Perceptions and Practices

Abstract

The emphasis of argument writing in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has led scholars to ponder how these standards will impact students of color and English learners. Some scholars have suggested that English learners or Latina/o students will face further difficulties with argument writing based on their linguistic or ethnic backgrounds (Hirvela, 2013; O’Hara-Rines, 2013). In particular, O’Hara-Rines (2013) argued that the Latino students in her sample had more difficulties with argument writing than White students due to their culture; specifically, because Latina/o students’ use of ‘Mexican discourse’ and shared culture of collectivism was less in line with the forms of argument and rhetorical discourse.
Scholars, who are critical of cultural and linguistic conceptions of students’ achievement, support the use of asset-based perspectives to include students’ academic strengths in educational research (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2014). In addition to an asset-based perspective, an ethnographic examination provides a fuller understanding of not only what students are able to accomplish with argument learning, but also, the process through which students learn to write arguments (Street & Leung, 2010).
Given the absence of such research, I conducted an ethnography from an asset-based, sociocultural perspective to examine the moment-by-moment practices of an English language arts classroom (Gee & Green, 1999; Street & Leung, 2010). I was a participant-observer in a 5/6th classroom every day for an academic year. This classroom was in a historically underperforming school in Southern California where 98% of students were Hispanic (as defined by the school district) and 100% were from low income backgrounds.
I collected 1800 hours of video- and audio-recordings; fieldnotes; interviews with students, teachers, and the principal; and classrooms texts, including student writing. I analyzed these data using inductive and deductive coding (Saldaña, 2009) and discourse analyses (Gee & Green, 1998), while considering the variety of social practices in the classroom, particularly those that occurred during the argument writing unit.
Through my analyses of students’ writing, I found that all but two of the students demonstrated a command of many of the CCSS argument writing standards, demonstrated understandings of argument structure, and used language in sophisticated ways to persuade the audience.
In addition to recognizing the students’ strengths, I also found an area for students’ future learning: none of the students used textual evidence in their arguments, which is significant because of the focus on evidence-based argumentation in the CCSS. The close examination of daily classroom practices showed me that students faced these challenges not because of any linguistic or cultural deficits, but because of external reasons, such as a limited time and instruction on how to use text evidence or conduct research.
My study points to the need to take on asset-based examinations of classroom practices to move away from static conceptualizations of students’ linguistic and heritage culture. As my findings indicate, an asset-based perspective may enable researchers and educators to understand the strengths that students have, their capacity for learning, and still identify areas where students may need further guidance.

Author

• Jane Y. Choi, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc