Empowering Education: Teaching Argumentative ...

Empowering Education: Teaching Argumentative Writing to Cultural Minority Middle-School Students Author(s): Stuart S. Yeh Source: Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Aug., 1998), pp. 49-83 Published by: National Council of Teachers of English Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171572 Accessed: 21-09-2015 15:47 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Research in the Teaching of English.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 84.255.158.159 on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:47:59 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Empowering Education: TeachingArgumentativeWriting to Cultural Minority Middle-SchoolStudents

Stuart S.Yeh Stanford University Using quasi-experimentaland casestudy researchmethods,I investigatedthe effectivenessof two heuristicsbasedon Toulmin's(1958) model of argumentand classicalrhetoricfor helping middle-schoolstudents in two differentschools to write argumentativeessays.Experimentalgroup essays exhibited largerpre- to posttestgains in developmentand voice than comparisongroup essays.Effectswereespeciallystrongfor essayswrittenby culturalminority (HispanicAmerican,AfricanAmerican,andAsian American)students,suggestingthat these studentsbenefitedfrom heuristicsregardingargumentstructure.However,the resultsof statistical tests to determinewhetherminoritiesbenefitedmorethan Whites are not consistentdue to the unbalancedsample of minoritiesand Whites.Effectsdue to site, includingdifferences due to teacher,classroom,and school,werenot statisticallysignificant.Students in the experimentalgroup applied the heuristicsflexibly, suggestingthat students learnedprinciplesrather than roteproceduresfor argumentationand were able to adapt the heuristicsand transfer their knowledgeto a rangeof topics.Students in the experimentalgroup also demonstrated greaterknowledgeof argumentcriteriaand strategies.These resultssupport the hypothesis that knowledgeof argumentstructuresharpensstudents'judgment regardingthe contentand organization needed to generate logically connectedarguments.By clarifying the requirementsfor writingpersuasiveargumentativeessays,the heuristicstested in the present study may improvetraditionally-underpreparedstudents'ability to write academicessays.

In school settings critical thinking is often assessed by asking students to identify an issue, consider different views,form anddefenda viewpoint,and consider and respond to counterarguments. Thus critical thinking is often linked with argumentation and the writing of argumentativeessays. The Research in the Teaching of English

•

ability to write effective argumentsinfluences grades,academic success, and preparation for college and employment. However, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Applebee, Langer, Mullis, Latham, & Gentile, 1994), only one percent of twelfth-grade students are Volume 33

•

August 1998


49

able to write an elaborate persuasive essay. At issue is how teachersshould assist students:directly or indirectly.One view is that many studentsbenefit from explicit instructionin the requirements for particularpatternsof argumentation, such as the thesis-supportform, in addition to exposure and immersion in contexts where the particularpatterns are appropriate(Christie,1986;Delpit, 1986, 1988; Farr,1993; Martin, 1985, 1993; Painter, 1986; Reyes, 1992). A second view is that patterns are best learnedindirectly,throughexposureand immersion alone (Gee, 1989; Genishi, 1992; Nystrand, 1986; Petraglia,1995). In this view, teachers seeking to teach studentsthe thesis-supportstyle should arrange a suitable context, such as a policy debate,as opposed to relying on explicitinstructionin the thesis-support form. What is missing, however, is an empirical evaluation of these views. Research has not answered the question of which approachworks best, for whom, and under what conditions. Without this knowledge teachers, researchers,and policymakerslack guidance regardingtheir efforts to improve argumentativewriting instruction. A promising form of explicit instruction involves heuristics: "plan(s) designed to help one in carrying out complex, non-routine activities for which trial and error is undesirableor unmanageable,and for which we lack a It helpsus transrule-governedplan late knowledge about something into knowledgeablepractice"(Young,1987, p. 22). The presentstudycontrastedexplicit instruction in heuristicsfor con50

structing arguments in combination with immersion in debate and peer response activities with a version of the same approach that excluded explicit instruction and included only the immersion activities.

Background Thesis Support Pattern Arguments for explicit instruction in thesis-supportstrategiesassumethatthe thesis-support pattern is important, widely applicable, and a valid, stable constructforjudging argumentquality. The literature on workplace writing suggeststhe practicaleconomic importance of skill with thesis-supportstrategies. Case studies of disciplinary writing suggestthatbasicthesis-support principlesarewidely applicable.Finally, psychometricevidence suggeststhatthe constructof thesis-supportis a validand relatively stable construct for judging the quality of an argument. Workplace Writing Ultimately,studentsneed to be prepared for writing tasksdemandedby employers. Therefore,it is necessaryto inquire about the contexts, audience,and general expectations regardingworkplace writing. Case studies suggest that the context for technical and professional writing frequentlydemandsanalysisof an issue and suggestion of a plan or solution. The audienceis frequentlya decision-maker - a supervisor or client- who must quickly judge the worth of a writer s suggestion (Anderson, 1985; MacKinnon, 1993; Miller & Selzer,1985; Paradis,Dobrin, & Miller, 1985; Pare, 1993; Smart, 1993). As a

Research in the Teaching of English

•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


result, employers favor workers with stronganalytical,argumentative,thesissupportwriting skills.These studiessuggest that skill with thesis-support strategiesof argumentationis important for advancement (which is not to say that knowledge of generalprinciplesis sufficient;success in any field requires knowledgeof field-specificnorms- c.f, Smagorinsky& Smith, 1992). For example, MacKinnon (1993) interviewed ten economists and financial analystsrecently hired by the Bank of Canadain the course of a naturalistic, longitudinal investigation of the

tative data" (p. 136). The principal mechanismfor transmittingthe executives' expectations is the repeated cycling of documents throughprogressive stagesof review,feedback,and revision. This social mechanismfor transmitting the executives'expectationsis reinforced by the weight placed on argumentative writing ability in promotion decisions.

Disciplinary Writing The ability to apply thesis-supportargumentation is also important across academicfieldsas diverseas science,history,andliterarycriticism.Myers(1991) found that scientists made claims and writing-relatedknowledge acquiredby supported them with evidence in reuniversity graduatesin their first one to two years on the job in a writing- view articles.He argues that Darnell's intensive organization. According to (1978) "typical"review of scientific reMacKinnon (1993),"The writing done searchis characterizedby an argument by analystsand economists respondsto supportedwith citations(Myers,1991). the information needs of various deci- Even Cricks (1979) "atypical"review sion makersin the organization"(p.43). article states a claim- "In the last two MacKinnonfurthernotes,"Inthe Bank, years there has been a mini-revolution most writing is analytic and argues a in moleculargenetics"(p.264) and procase.Writers pose and defend contest- vides support.In both casesthe authors able ideas: they analyze and evaluate seek "to enlist readers in a particular other people's ideas Young analysts view of the present and future of the and economists are often told that se- field" (Myers,1991, p. 64). In addition, nior readerswant analysis,evaluation, classic examples of the thesis-support form are found in scientificjournal ararguments"(p. 53). As an in-house writing trainerin ticles where a writer s conclusions conthe same organization, Smart (1993) stitute the writer'sthesis and his or her methods over researchevidence constitutes the supused participant-observer a period of eight yearsto study execuport. Mitchell andAndrews's(1994) detives' expectations about writing and both individual and group composing scription of criteria for assessingacademic essays in history suggests that processes.Smart(1993) found that"executives expect a paper to focus on a sophisticatedessaysinvolve argumentaspecific issue; to state a clear position tion, that is, a viewpoint supported by and supportit with a succinctargument evidence and reflecting and respondgrounded in carefullyselected quanti- ing to alternativeviews: "Writing and EmpoweringEducation


51

argumentcome together almost exclusivelyin the essayform in advancedlevel history and in practice"(p.86). Even in a genre such as literarycriticism where regularitiesare least likely to be found, Fahnestockand Secor's (1991) analysis suggests that essays exhibited a basic patternof claimssupportedby evidence: "Literarycriticism, whatever its strategy, remains argumentativein its purposeful support of claims and in its attemptto gainits audience'sadherence" (p. 78). Psychometric Evidence If supporting a thesis is a generally accepted principle of argumentation, measuresof essayquality based on this principle should be stable across contexts and audiences for writing. Conversely,if this principle is not generally accepted,one would expect to observe that measurementsbased on the principle are unstable when contexts and audiences are varied. That is, the correlation of such measureswith a criterion measurewould be highly variable acrosscontexts and audiences. Available studies show that judgments of argument quality depend in general on how well claims are supported. Correlations between the criterion for quality (unassisted holistic ratingsof overallargumentquality)and ratingsof supportrangefrom .54 to .75 (Connor, 1990; Crammond, 1997;Yeh, 1998). In this type of study,holistic ratings are used as the criterion for argument quality because they are not directlyinfluenced by the researcher,at least not through an explicit scoring rubric. 52

Despite great differences in the nature of the writing prompts; age, ethnicity,and nationalityof writers;and age, education, and backgroundof ratersacrossthese researchstudies,the findings were consistent. The writer's development of supporthad the largest effect on holistic ratings.While these studiesdo not rule out the influence of context and audience,they supportthe validity of measures of argumentative writing quality that are based on the degree to which claims are supported. Rationalefor Heuristics The importance of well-supported argumentativewriting is clear.However, middle school students have difficulty producing effective arguments.In particular,although studentscan articulate opinionsandreasonstheirsupportis frequently weak (Applebee, et al., 1994; Knudson, 1992a, 1992b). Heuristics, defined by Young (1987) as systematic plans for carrying out complex activities,offera promisingapproachfor guiding students to strengthen the support for their arguments. Heuristics and Transfer Research on knowledge transfersuggests how heuristicsfor developing arguments may help studentsto increase the quality of their arguments.Knowledge transfer(flexible use) may be fostered through mindful application of principles(Gick& Holyoak,1980, 1983, 1987; Salomon & Perkins,1989). Based on their review of researchon conditions fostering transfer, Gick and Holyoak (1987), conclude that"In general,an abstractrule or schemaincluded


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


with the acquisition instances may fa- novice writers to understandthe aims cilitate transferto novel examples, es- and strategiesof professionalsand genpecially when the acquisition and erateand organizecontent accordingly. transferitems are superficiallydissimi- Furthermore,Larsonarguesthatthe arlar (Gick & Holyoak, 1983) or when rangementof partsin a classicaloration, which proceeds according to thesisthe rule is difficult to induce from examplesalone (Cheng,Holyoak,Nisbett, support principles,"reflectsa powerful & Oliver,1986;Fong,Krantz,& Nisbett, insightinto effectivewaysof putting ar1986)" (p. 29). Salomon and Perkins guments" (p. 54). In this view, the the(1989) also reviewed researchon trans- sis-support form reflects a common fer. They defined mindful abstraction response by professionalwriters to reas"the deliberate,usuallymetacognitive- curring exigencies, that is, attempts to ly guided and effortful,decontextualiza- satisfy the needs of readersto undertion of a principle, main idea, strategy, standwhat the writer is arguingfor and or procedure"(p. 126) and concluded why the reader should be persuaded. that"transfervia mindfulabstractioncan This view is consistent with Millers occur quite quickly" (p. 122). Signifi- (1984) influentialre-definitionof genre, cantly,"The high roadto transfercomes which views textual regularitiesas reinto play during explicit instruction curring rhetorical responses to recuraimed at provokingor conveying wellring exigencies. Heuristicsmay be seen understoodabstractions"(p.127). Their as devices to teach studentsa patternof argumentsuggeststhat explicit instruc- thought a processfor achievinga welltion may foster conscious or formed essay that avoids focus on sumetacognitiveapplicationof principles perficialaspectsof the written product. and strategies.This applicationmay in However, even if patterns exist in turn foster transferto novel examples. argumentation,variations in contexts A promising form of explicit instruc- and audiences give rise to the need for tion involvesheuristics,which may fos- flexibilityand adaptiveness.The degree ter mindful application of the thesis- to which reasonsand warrantsaremade explicit, the standardof proof, and the support principle, increase transferto differenttopicsandcontexts,andimprove styleof argumentationmayvary.A basic question is how studentsmay be taught argumentquality. Heuristicsfor writing havereceived to be flexible in adopting principlesof little researchattention since the early argumentationto these differences. One view is that learning of argu1980s,yet for a time Odell (1974),Young and Koen (1973), Larson (1968), and mentativewriting can be acceleratedif novice writers aretaughtheuristicsthat others found them to be effective instructionaltools. Larson (1987) argues provide guidance regardingthe expecthat the plansthat organizeprofessional tations of readerswith respect to arguwriters'work aretightly relatedto their mentativetext, in additionto immersion in debate and exposure to a range of habitsin thinking, suggestingthat heuristicsbased on these plans might help contexts and opportunities for peer EmpoweringEducation


53

feedback (Farr,1993). In this view, basic principles of argumentationreflect general reader expectations: Claims should be supported. Students would need to adaptthese principles for particular contexts and audiences but would be taughtthatthese specificcases are unified by general principles. Empowerment The political and ideological dimensions of what to teach and how to teach it havebeen articulatedby scholarssuch as Martin (1985; 1993), Painter(1986), Christie(1986),andDelpit (1986, 1988), who emphasizethe importance of empowering disadvantaged students by enabling them to acquirethe genres of the dominant culture through explicit teaching of strategies for generating those genres. The purpose is to demystify tacit values, priorities, and expectations.In Delpit s (1988) view,"If such explicitnessis not providedto students, what it feels like to people who are old enough to judge is that there are secretsbeing kept, that time is being wasted, that the teacher is abdicating his or her duty to teach" (p. 287).

courses are not masteredby overt instruction . . . but by enculturation (apprenticeship) into social practices through scaffolded and supported interactionwith people who have already mastered the Discourse" (p. 7). Citing Krashen and Terrell (1983), Genishi (1992) states,"The current consensus regarding appropriate curricula, even with olderlearners,is thatexplicitteaching about the forms of English is not useful;being able to use English,as well as hear it in comprehensible ways, is critical"(p.101).Nystrand (1986, 1990) argues that there are great differences among fields and that it is misleading to teach students that thesis-support structureis widely applicable.He asserts that it may be more effective to expose students to a variety of contexts for writing and a variety of audiences specifically,peer feedback so that students learn to adapt their texts in accordancewith the audiences expectations. In this view, thesis-supportargumentationis one of severalformsthat may be applicable,depending on the situation.

The Present Study Criticisms However, several researchersquestion the usefulnessof explicitlyteachingstudents strategies for writing. Petraglia (1995) arguesthat "not only is the explicitteachingof the rhetoricalelements of writing unnecessary,but it may be counterproductive,as it promotes the mistaken belief that rhetorical behavior can be rule governed and independent of the context in which it is used" (p. 90). Gee (1989) asserts that "dis54

The controversy between those who advocate explicit instruction and those who support immersion suggests the need for the presentstudy.In this study I contrastedexplicit instructionin heuristics for constructing arguments in combinationwith immersionin debate and peer responseactivities,with a version of the sameapproachthatexcluded explicitinstructionbut includedthe immersion activities.I investigatedthe following questions: (a) What were the


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


effects of the experimental treatment versus the comparison treatment on support,voice, and conventions exhibited in students'writing? (b)What were the effects of differentschool sites (i.e., different contexts)? (c) What were the effectsof studentethnicity?(d)Werethe experimentalheuristicsappliedflexibly (definedas modificationsin the heuristics that increased argument development and strength)?(e) What were the effects of the experimental and comparison treatments on students' metacognitive knowledge of argument criteria and strategies?

(CTBS);the other EG classaveraged29 on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). In contrast, one comparison group (CG) class averaged31 on the CTBS; the other CG classaveraged34 on the SAT.Thus, at preteststudentsin the EG were at a lower achievement level than students in the CG. Three students in the comparison group and three students in the experimental group moved or otherwise did not complete the study. The schools were selected to ensure a heavily minority, economicallystudentpopulationin two disadvantaged different communities. Ms. Smith was Method recommendedby her principalasan exParticipants perienced teacher of writing and selected partly because she did not have Participantsincluded two teachers located in different cities (and thus, in previous experience with a localWritdifferentschools). Each teacher imple- ing Project. Ms. Jones was recommented the experimentalcurriculumin mended by the director of the local one classand the comparison curricu- Writing Projectand selected partlybelum in a second class.Thus,participants cause of her experience as a Writing included 116 students in four seventh Projectconsultant.Teacherbackground gradelanguageartsclasseslocatedin two was varied in order to examine the hyeconomically disadvantagedSan Fran- pothesis that treatment effects depend cisco BayArea cities.Seventy-fourper- on teacher background. cent of the students were eligible for The teachers- Ms. Smith and Ms. free or reduced-pricelunches. The eth- Jones (pseudonyms)- differedin expenic distributionof studentswas 71 per- rience (7 versus 37 years),background cent Hispanic American (primarilyof (no Writing Project experience versus Mexican descent), 14 percent African consultingfor theWriting Project),and American, nine percentWhite, and six ethnicity (African American versus percent Asian American (of Chinese, AsianAmerican).There were other difFilipino,and Samoandescent).Students' ferences as well. I judged Ms. Smith's academic preparation,as measured by implementationof both curriculato be average reading percentile scores on strongbasedon observationsof her abilstandardizedtests,was low and unequal ity to orchestrate classroom debates, across groups at pretest. One experi- provide clear explanations,involve stumentalgroup (EG) classaveraged22 on dents in discussions, and implement the ComprehensiveTestsof Basic Skills planned activities.Using the same criEmpoweringEducation


55

teria, I judged Ms. Jones' implementation to be average,relativeto Ms. Smith's implementationand my observationsof a third teacher who implemented a similar curriculum. Ms. Smiths disciplinary style was strict;she consistently enforced rules for not disrupting the classroom.On the other hand,using the same criteria,I judged Ms.Jones' disciplinary style to be less strict.I also observed that Ms. Smith'sand Ms. Jones' students differed in relative attentiveness (high versus average)and engagement (high versusaverage). Design A nonequivalent (pretestand posttest) comparisongroupdesignwas combined

with casestudiesof 36 randomlyselected students,stratifiedby treatmentgroup, classroom,andthreereadingachievement levels. Instruments Prompts Figure 1 contains the text of the two pre- and posttest writing prompts, which were counterbalanced.Unfamiliar topics with balanced pro and con arguments were selected both so that studentswould be motivatedto readand use the pro and con sourcematerialattached to the promptsratherthan relying on their own knowledge and to test the efficacyof the experimentalheuristics with regardto challengingtopics.

Should People Throw Toxic Wastes Into The Ocean? Dangerouschemicals,calledtoxic wastes,aresometimesthrowninto the ocean to get rid of them.Some people think thatit is not harmfulor badto do this.Other people think that throwingdangerouschemicalsinto the ocean is bad. Read both articles stapledto thispaperabouttoxic wastes.Write a letterto be printedin the newspaper. Tellthe readersof the newspaperwhethera law is neededto stoppeople fromthrowing toxic wastesinto the ocean.Makea clear,organized,strongargument.Show that you understandboth sidesof the problem.Becauseyour answermay not be acceptable to some of your readers,supportyour answerwith good arguments.

Should People Drink Alcohol? Many people drink alcohol,that is, beer or wine. Some people think that it is not harmfulor bad to drink alcohol. Other people think that drinkingalcohol is bad. Read both articlesstapledto this paperabout drinkingalcohol.Write a letter to be Tell the readersof the newspaperwhether a law is needed printedin the newspaper. to stoppeople fromdrinkingalcohol.Makea clear,organized,strongargument.Show that you understandboth sides of the problem.Because your answermay not be acceptableto some of your readers,supportyour answerwith good arguments. Figure 1. Text of pretest and posttest writingprompts (counterbalanced). 56


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


Scoring Rubric Figure2 shows the rubricused to score the pre- and posttest essays.It is composed of threedimensions:development, voice, and conventions. The rubricwas designed and validatedfor the purpose of assessingargumentativeessayswritten by middleschool students(seeYeh,1998, for resultsof validationstudy). PT

The development dimension was based onToulmin's (1958) model and was defined as the degree to which the writers primary claim was supported by strong,developed reasonsand arguments that consideredimportant alternativesor objections. Voice was defined as vivid, sincere expression of one's opinions (Gere,

DEVELOPMENT, ORGANIZATION,FOCUS & CLARITY

VOICE

CONVENTIONS

1

No primaryclaim.

2

Definite,but unsupportedclaim.

3

Definite claimsupportedby weak premisesand warrant;overlooks strongerarguments,important objectionsor alternatives. Definite claim.Strongbut undeveloped reasons:readermust infersubarguments for premisesand warrant,and against objectionsor alternatives. Definite claimsupportedby strong, developedarguments.Claritycould be enhancedthroughdefinition,elaboration, illustration,explicitconnections,and conciseness.

Moderately immaturevoice/ language.

Many errors (3 types),

Somewhat immaturevoice/ language.

Occasional errors (2 types),

Maturebut blandvoice/ language.

Infrequent errors (1 type),

Definite,well-qualifiedclaimor proposal. Strong,developed,well-organized supportingarguments.Respondsto major Key terms, objectionsand alternatives. ideasand connectionsaredefined, elaborated,and illustratedto avoid Sentencesbuild on each misinterpretation. other throughconnectingwordsor ideas. Wordingis clear,concise,and consistent.

MaturevoiceVirtually definedas: error-free, appropriate, sophisticated, audience-centered vivid language full of conviction,

4

5

6

No voice Continual errorsin usage, (credibilityor emotionalappeal), grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Extremely Many errors immaturevoice/ confusereader (4 types), languagefor audience.

Figure 2. Rubric usedfor scoringargumentativeessays along the dimensions of development,voice, and conventions. EmpoweringEducation


57

Fairbanks,Howes, Roop, & Schaafsma, 1992). From a rhetorical perspective, credibilityand emotional appealsserve as a means to engage readers,convey sincerity,project a strongvoice, and reinforce logical appeals(Corbett, 1971). Therefore, voice was included in the present study as a factor in evaluating the quality of essaysand was defined as the use of language to establish the writer's credibility and arouse the readers emotions. Credibility appeals were defined as the use of language to build the readers trust through careful considerationof the issues and opposing viewpoints, a maturetone, or references to personal experiences. Emotional appealswere defined as the use of vivid languageandexamplesserving to arousethe readers emotions,such as fear,sympathy,and anger. Conventions were defined as correctnesswith respectto spelling,usage, grammar,and mechanics. Thesis-Support Familiarity Familiarity with thesis-support argumentation was assessedthrough a selfreport measure. Each student was directed to "think about your parents, uncles, aunts,and other adultsthat you regularlytalk with" and then answera series of questions,including: (1)Altogether,how much time per day do you talk with them? (A) more than 2 hours (B) 1-2 hours (C) 30-60 minutes (D) 15-30 minutes (E) 5-15 minutes (F) 0-5 minutes 58

(2)How often do these adultsask your opinion, that is, what you think or feel about things that happen in your life or in the news? (A) every day (B) 3-6 daysper week (C) 1-2 daysper week (D) 1-3 daysper month (E) 1-11 daysper year (3)How often do you give them your opinion andgive reasonsfor your opinion? (A) every day (B) 3-6 daysper week (C) 1-2 daysper week (D) 1-3 daysper month (E) 1-11 daysper year Questions (1) and (2) were designed as contrastswith question (3), in order to increasethe reliabilityof answersto (3). Only answersto (3) were used to assess the frequency with which students practicedthe thesis-supportstyle of argumentation at home with adults.Presumably, a more accurate (but time-consuming) measure would involve interviews with each parentand/ or observationsof social interaction in each child'shome. The self-reportmeasurewasselectedbasedon feasibilityand the need to collect information on variationsin home discoursepatterns. Devising the Heuristics Pyramid The pyramid heuristic taught to students in the experimental group was based on Toulmin's (1958) model: a claim (conclusion, assertion,thesis, or opinion) connected to and supported


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


by data(reasons,premises,evidence) via an explicitor implicitwarrant- the part of the argumentthatjustifies the move from the reasonto the claim. The warrant may have backing, the claim may be narrowedby qualifiers,and the argument may include answers to counterarguments.Toulminrecognized that what counts as reasons and connectors varies from discipline to discipline but he argued that well-formed argumentshave the same basic components. Toulmins model is potentially useful to teachers because it goes beyond models that simply suggest that writers support their claims. Toulmin delineates three differentkinds of support:reasons,connectors (warrantsand

backing), and responses to counterarguments. Students were taught to pre-write their ideas in the form of a pyramid, with the main claim or thesisstatement on top, two supporting reasons and a counterargumenton the second level, andexplanationsof why the reasonssupportthe claimplusananswerto the counterargumenton the third level. Asking studentsto explainwhy theirreasonssupport theirclaimswas a simplepromptfor studentsto supply missing premisesor connectors that would strengthen the reason-claimconnection. Figure3 is an exampleof one students pyramid.In her essay the student used the elements in the second tier (Reason #1, Reason #2,

OPINION: People shouldnot drinkalcohol

REASON #1 People shouldn'tdrink too much alcohol becauseit could hurt them and other people aroundthem.

REASON #2 When people drink alcohol they do dangerousthings.

COUNTERARGUMENT Many people saya small amountwill not hurt,it can even be healthy,

WHY? People who can'tstop drinkingarecalled alcoholics.Alcoholics drinktoo much and lose controlof themselves,cause accidents,andsuffer fromhealthproblems.

WHY? Some people causecar crashesby drivingon the wrong side of the road,not stoppingat stop signs,or traffic lights.

ANSWER While smallamountsare safe,you can get addicted to it andyou will increase the amountyou drink, Especiallyif they are unhappyabout theirjobs or feel that nobody cares about them, then they will become alcoholics.

Figure 3. Example of an experimentalstudent'spyramid (with correctedspelling). EmpoweringEducation


59

and the counterargument)as topic sentencesfor paragraphs thatwere filledout with the correspondingelements of the third tier. Thus, she used the pyramid heuristicas a promptfor generatingand organizing content that strengthened her argument. Bridge The bridge heuristic taught to students in the experimental group was based on a modern version of classical rhetoric'sstasistheory for categorizing argumentsaccordingto types of claims. Fulkerson (1996) reviewed several schemesand derivedthreemain categories of arguments: (a) substantiation (claims regardingfacts), (b) evaluation (valueclaims),and (c) recommendation (proposalclaims).To introduce novices to argumentation, I modified this scheme. Students were asked to consider argumentsregardingfacts,values, and causes (rather than proposals) as heuristics for connecting reasons and claims. Studentswere taughtto bridgeeach reason and opinion by writing facts, statementsdefendingvalues,and if-then

REASON

statements spelling out causal reasoning. The bridge heuristic was designed to prompt students to fill in missing premisesneeded to connect reasonsto claims.It provided more explicit guidance for generating content contained in the pyramid'sthird level. Figure 4 is an exampleof one students bridge.The student bridged her reason and opinion (that is, her claim) by stating what she believed to be an important fact ("Some familiescan'taffordto buy uniforms for their kids"),explaininga consequence ("Ifkids can'tafforduniforms, then they'll get into trouble for not wearing them at school"), and defending the value of personal expression ("Kidshave their own personalitiesand they need to express them in their clothes"). This example demonstrates how the bridge heuristicscaffoldedstudents as they learned to reasonby supplying and defending premises that connected reasonsto claims. Procedure

Of the two classes taught by each teacher,one was randomly assignedto the experimental group (EG) and the

If kids can't afforduniforms It costs too Some families then they'llget much for can'taffordto into troublefor parentsto buy uniforms not wearing for theirkids. them at school. purchase uniformsand a A ^

afterschool I

COt ing'

T 1^FACTS

I believe we shouldnot have uniforms,

clothes,

J_ IFTHENS

OPINION

-""^^ Kidshavetheir own personalities and they need to express them in their

^_ VALUES^

I

I

student'sbridge(withcorrected Figure4. Exampleof an experimental spelling). 60


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


other classwas assignedto the comparison group (CG).Each classwas administered the pretest, received six weeks of instruction in the experimental or comparisoncurriculumas appropriate, and was then given the posttest.Teachers received the same amount of training- approximatelytwo hours over the six week period of teaching. During the six-week instructional phase of the study,each teacher taught one comparison class and one experimental class.To achievecontrol,the EG and CG treatmentswere designed to be identicalexcept for the differencein pre-writing heuristics. Aside from this difference,studentsin both groupswere taughtusing the sameprocessapproach, in which the emphasisis on writing as a processthatincludesprewriting,writing, responding,revising,editing,developing skills with conventions, and evaluating,with instruction integrated into the writing process. Thus, differences in outcomes between treatments can be attributed to the difference in pre-writing heuristics.By designingthe treatmentsthis way, I sought to determine the incremental effect of adding the experimentalheuristicsto a particularvariationof the widely-used process approach,suggesting how the process approachmay be improved. Every three to four days,students readpro and con argumentson a given topic, participatedin a classroom debate, received pre-writing instruction, then planned,wrote, and revisedan argumentativeessay.Over six weeks each student wrote approximatelyeight essays.The topics focused on varioussocial issues including animal rights,

homelessness,drug laws, steroid use in sports, and dress codes. Using various source materials,including the Opposing Viewpoints Juniors book series for middle school students (Greenhaven Press),I developed one pro and one con opinion articlefor each topic, edited for clarity,vocabulary,length, and thesissupportform. All studentsreadthe articles in preparationfor in-classdebates involving four-member debate teams. The debates were designed to engage studentsin argumentation,develop argumentationskills,motivatestudentsto write argumentativeessays,andhelp students to generate content for their essays.Afterthe opening roundof debate, studentsin the audiencebecame eligible to participate. They took notes and served as judges, casting ballots to decide the winning team.Pre-writing instructionwas the only element thatwas varied between EG and CG (see descriptionsbelow). Afterinstruction,studentswere given a context,for example, to write a letter to the school principal regardingthe dress code. Individually, they brainstormedideas,chose a thesis (not limited to the pro/con debate positions),and wrote a rough draft. They met with the teacher to receive feedback, exchanged papers with partners to provide and receive feedback,made revisions,and wrote a final copy. The teacher read exemplary papers to the classand studentsvoted on the best paper to be sent to an appropriatereader (principal,President,etc.). In the EG studentswere taughttwo complementarypre-writing heuristics: the pyramidandbridge.Explicitteacher presentationsof both schemes and ex-

EmpoweringEducation


61

amples were integrated with guided discussion regardingtheir application, emphasizingthe use of the heuristicsas promptsfor generatingand organizing content. Each cycle of instructionbuilt upon the previous cycle, introducing elements of the pyramidand bridge in succession. In the CG studentswere taught to write their ideas in the form of a preweb (concept map), with the opinion (mainclaim)in the middle andbranches for an introduction, three supporting reasons,and a conclusion. For the purpose of creating a web, "reason"was loosely defined to include answers to is potentialcounterarguments.Webbing a commonly taught pre-writing activity (see, for example, Kemper,Nathan, & Sebranek,1995, p. 296) that is consistent with process approaches.In the present study webbing served to controlfor the possibilityof favorabletreatment effects from merely drawing a picture and listing supportingreasons. The key differencebetween the EG and CG treatmentsis that students in the CG did not receive instruction regarding the pyramid and bridge heuristics. Thus, there was no explicit guidance about criteriaforjudging arguments and strategiesfor elaborating reasons and making connections with claim statements. In order to avoid a straw person comparison,both treatmentswere designed to be consistentwith Nystrand's (1990) suggestion that effective teaching includes a high degree of interaction among teachersand students,with an emphasison peer conferencing and feedback that shapeswriting in accor62

dance with the audience'sexpectations. Both treatmentswere consistent with the notion that studentslearn the genre of thesis-support argumentation through a process of socializationinto a community that employs this style of discourse (Bizzell, 1992). In both treatment groups teachers arrangeda context that cued certain expectations regarding the students' and teachers' roles.Each studentwas expected to develop his or her opinion and reasons based on reading pro and con arguments, participating in classroom debates,andby usingpre-writingsupports such as a web or bridge. In both treatment groupsstudentswere expected to be authors- that is, to think critically about knowledge and views presented in source texts and by other students and to contributetheir own knowledge by formulatinga point of view, synthesizing supporting evidence, and respondingto objectionsand alternatives. Each studentwas expected to construct actively his or her arguments and knowledge of argumentation,supported by the reading material, debates, and heuristics.The teacher'srole was to arrange a context that fostered and supported the student'srole as author and knowledge constructor.The key aspects of this context were (a)accessto printed and oral information and opposing viewpoints thatwould help inform studentsas they developedtheirown opinions, (b) accessto models of written and oralargument,(c) social contexts in the form of debates that valued and provided engaging opportunities for students to express their opinions and receive feedback, both oral and writ-


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


ten, (d) peer feedback, and (e) teacher guidance,instruction,support,andfeedbackthatfacilitatedandshapedstudents' effortsto expresstheir opinions according to the expectations of the world beyond the classroom. However, instruction of the EG provided explicit guidance that was expected to sharpen students'judgment regardingthese expectations. Data Collection Four sets of data were collected. The first set includes pretest data collected before,and posttestdatacollected after, instruction.During two 50-minute class periods,both groupsreada pro and con essay,answered multiple choice questions testing reading comprehension and proceduralknowledge for writing arguments,wrote an argumentbasedon the readingmaterial,and describedtheir writing procedures and criteria for sound argumentation.Half of each class was randomly assigned one topic and the other half was assigned a second topic; assignments were counterbalanced at posttest.The posttestincluded a manipulation check in the form of questionsassessinguse of the bridge and pyramidheuristics. The second data set comprised transcriptsof interviews with 36 randomly selected case study participants, plus copies of all pre-writing, rough drafts,and essaysproduced during the six-week instructional phase of the study.Each case study participantwas interviewed two or three times. After I located the students most recent complete essay,the student described the entire processinvolved in producing it.

To assessimplementation of the treatments, I asked students:"What do you do before you write your essay?"Depending on the answer, I then asked "How do you makeyour web (or pyramid or bridge)? What do you think about?What are you trying to do?"To assessstudents'knowledge of criteria I asked:"What reallycounts in writing a strong argument?Suppose I gave you another student'spaper and asked you to tell me if it is a strong argument or not, how would you know,what would you look for?" To assessstudents'strategic knowledge, I asked:"What steps did you follow in writing your argument?What did you do first?Second? Third?(Etc.)" The third data set was composed of responsesto the surveyadministered to all students regardinglanguage and discoursepatternsat home to assessuse of thesis-supportstyleof argumentation. The fourth data set included videotapes, audiotapes,and observational data a researchassistantand I collected on a daily basisin each classroom,plus interviews with each teacher before, during, and after the six-week period of instruction. This information was used to monitor implementationof the treatments,collect informationon contextual variablesthat could account for differencesin outcomes, and framedata analysesand interpretations. Analysis All pre- and posttest essayswere typed with identifiers removed, then graded by one of two experienced Educational TestingService (ETS) graderson three dimensions- development, voice, and

EmpoweringEducation


63

conventions- accordingto the 6-point scoring rubricspreviouslyvalidatedfor this purpose (Figure2). Half of the essayswere scored by two gradersto establishinterraterreliability(these essays were assignedthe averageof the graders' scores). ETS graders were chosen because they had been selected and trainedby ETS to produce consistent, reliablegrades.I trainedthe gradersfor one hour on using the scoring rubrics, scoring sample essays, and clarifying grading distinctions.I verified that the graders were following the rubrics as intended. Correlations between rater scoreswere .95 for development,.89 for voice, .85 for conventions. Gainscoreswere calculatedby subtractingpretestfrom posttestscoresand analysesof variancewere conducted for mainandinteractioneffectsof treatment group, school site, student gender, and student ethnicity. Because a series of analyseson disaggregateddatademonstratedthatAfricanAmerican,Hispanic American,andAsianAmericanstudents performed similarly on the pre- and posttest, and because minorities as a group were hypothesized to need explicit instructionmore thanWhite students, the three minority subgroups were aggregatedand analyzedtogether. Two analyses assessed students' knowledge of criteriaand strategiesfor argumentativewriting. First,transcripts of interviewswith the 36 casestudystudents were scored using six-point rubrics based on the Development scale for assessingstudents'knowledge of criteria and strategies.Second, case study student interview transcripts were coded and eventually assigned to one 64

of two categories: (a) exhibits knowledge of claim-supportstructure,or (b) focuses on conventions,providesvague responses, or gives "don't know" responses. The second analysiswas performed twice: (a) for knowledge of criteriaand (b) for knowledge of strategies. To assesswhether the pyramidheuristicwas used flexibly,each experimental group posttest essaywas parsedand phraseswere coded as main claim, reason, supportingfact,value statement,ifthen statement, counterargument, answer,emotional appeal,or credibility appeal.Statementswere labeled as facts if they were statedas such in the reading materialor if I judged them to be true claimsthatwould be acceptedas true by a typicaladult. Essayswere categorized based on this analysis.Category 1 essaysincluded the mainpyramidelements(mainclaim, reason #1, support for reason #1, reason #2, support for reason #2, counterargument,and answer)in order, without additionalelements. Category 2 essaysincluded the main pyramidelements but with modifications in sequence or number of elements. Category 3 essayswere missing one or more pyramid elements and did not exhibit claim-support structure. Category 4 essayswere missingone or more pyramidelements but exhibited claimsupport structure, i.e., an identifiable claimsupportedby reasonsand/or facts, value statements,or if-then statements. Answers to the questionnaireitem askinghow often each studentgavehis/ her opinion and reasonswhen talking at home were tallied,converted to days


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


per week using the midpoint of each range of values,and averaged.

Results Effects of Group As shown in Table 1, regardingdevelopment, gain scores for the EG were significantlyhigher than gain scoresfor the CG, f(108) = 2.35, p = .02, with an experimental - comparison effect size of 0.64 SD.Regardingvoice, gain scores for the EG were significantly higher than gain scores for the CG, f(108) = 2.75, p = .01, with an experimental comparison effect size of 0.63 SD. Regardingconventions,gain scoresfor the EG were not significantlyhigher than gain scores for the CG, f(108) = 1.19, p = .24. Effects of Ethnicity

Development Regarding developmentgain scoresfor cultural minorities (that is, Hispanic American,AfricanAmerican,andAsian American students grouped together) in the EG were significantlyhigher than gain scoresfor culturalminoritiesin the

CG, r(98) = 2.65,/? = .01, mean(EG minorities) = 0.77, mean(CG minorities) = 0.14, with an experimental comparison effect size of 0.53 SD. Regarding development, gain scores for Whites in the EG were not significantly differentfrom gain scoresforWhites in the CG, f(8) = 0.63, p = .55, mean(EG Whites) = -0.60, mean(CG Whites) = -0.20 (lossesby Whites in the EG and CG were not statisticallysignificantly different from zero). Examination of mean pretestandposttestscoresby treatment group and ethnicity suggeststhe possibility of an interaction between treatmentgroup and ethnicity,i.e., that the experimental treatmentwas effective for minorities but not Whites (see Table2). However,due to the largedisparity in cell sizes, the main effect of treatmentgroup is largely confounded with the interactionbetween treatment group and ethnic status. As a result, when either the main effect or interaction is entered into the equation, it is statisticallysignificant, but neither of these effects is significant in the presence of the other. Specifically,the in-

Table 1 Mean Scores on Development, Voice, and Conventions Group

n

development m sd

m

voice sd

conventions m sd

EGpre EG post EG gain

56 56 56

2.38 3.02 0.64*

0.95 0.77 1.21

3.21 3.70 0.48**

0.62 0.69 0.79

3.29 3.66 0.38

0.78 0.79 0.82

CGpre CGpost CGgain

54 54 54

2.98 3.09 0.11

0.86 0.73 1.16

3.41 3.44 0.04

0.74 0.79 0.91

3.59 3.78 0.19

0.71 0.84 0.85

*p < .05. **p< .01 EmpoweringEducation


65

Table 2 Mean Development Scores by Ethnicity Group

n

EGpre EG post

51 51

CGpre CGpost

49 49

minority m

white m

sd

sd

n

2.33 3.10

0.97 0.70

5 5

2.80 2.20

0.45 1.10

Z9S 3.12

O90 0.75

5 5

3XX) 2.80

O00 0.45

teraction is significant according to a stepwise analysis of variance that includes ethnicity and the group by ethnicityinteractionterm but not treatment group as predictors,F(l, 107) = 7.43,p = .01,MS(E) = 1.34. However, when group is included as a predictor, the interactionis insignificant,F(l,106) = 1.76, p = .19, MS(E) = 1.35, suggesting that a more balancedsampleof minority andWhite studentsis needed to obtain reliableestimatesof the main effect of group comparedto the interaction between group and ethnicity. Voice Results for voice are similar to results for development.Regardingvoice, gain scoresfor culturalminorities in the EG were significantly higher than gain

scoresfor culturalminoritiesin the CG, r(98)= 2.65, p = .01,mean(EG minorities) = 0.51, mean(CG minorities) = 0.04, with an experimental- comparison effect size of 0.53 SD. Regarding voice, gain scores forWhites in the EG were not significantly different from = gain scoresforWhites in the CG, f(8) = = 1.00,p . 17, mean(EGWhites) 0.20, mean(CGWhites) = 0.00. Examination of pretest and postest scores by treatment group and ethnicity suggeststhe possibility of an interaction between treatmentgroup and ethnicity (seeTable 3). However,due to the disparityin cell sizes, the main effect of group is confounded with the interaction between group and ethnicity.Both effectsarestatistically significant when considered alone.The interaction is significantac-

Table 3 Mean Voice Scores by Ethnicity Group

n

EGpre EG post

51 51

CGpre CGpost

49 49

66

minority m

white m

sd

n

3.16 3.67

0.61 0.68

5 5

3.80 4.00

0.45 0.71

3.41 3.45

0.76 0.82

5 5

3.40 3.40

0.55 0.55


• Volume 33

sd

• August 1998


cording to an analysisof variance that only includesthe groupby ethnicityinteraction term as a predictor,F(l, 108) = 6.30, p = .01, MS(E) = 0.73. However,when group is included as a predictor, the interaction is insignificant, F(l,107) = 0.23,/? = .63, MS(E) = 0.73, suggesting once again that a more balanced sample of minority and White studentsis needed to obtain reliableestimatesof the maineffectof groupcomparedto the interactionbetween group and ethnicity. Home Discourse HispanicAmerican studentsreporteda lower frequencyof using thesis-support argumentationat home, relativeto AfricanAmericans,who reporteda lower frequencythanWhites (sincetherewere only a few AsianAmericans,they were excluded from this analysis).This finding is consistent with researchsuggesting that culturalminority students are less familiarwith thesis-supportargumentation than White students and thereforehave greaterneed for explicit instruction regarding this discourse form (Farr,1993). This finding is also consistent with analysisof experimental group students'pretestDevelopment scoresby ethnic group.HispanicAmerican students scored lower on the pretest thanAfricanAmericans,who scored lower thanWhites. Familiarity However, analysis of variance fails to supportthe hypothesisthat the experimental teaching approach benefited HispanicAmerican,AfricanAmerican, and AsianAmerican studentsby raising

low

levels

of familiarity with thesis-supportargumentation.Analysis of varianceof EG pretestdevelopment scores shows a significant effect for ethnicity,F(2,51) = 3.25,p = .05,MS(E) = 0.85, i.e., minorities scored lower on the pretest.However, self-reported familiaritywith thesis-supportargumentation is not significantwith respect to pretest development scores, F(l, 51) = 0.62, p = .44, MS(E) = 0.85, nor is the interaction between ethnicity and familiaritywith thesis-supportargumentation, F(2, 51) = 0.24, p = .79, MS(E) = 0.85. Development gains exhibit the samepatternof results.Analysisof variance of EG development gains shows a significant effect for ethnicity,F(2, 51) = 3.70, p = .03, MS(E) = 1.33. However,self-reportedfamiliaritywith thesis-support argumentation is not significantwith respectto development gains,F(l, 51) = 0.55, p = .46, MS(E) = 1.33, nor is the interaction between ethnicity and familiarity with thesissupportargumentation,F(2, 51) = 0.54, p = .59, MS(E) = 1.33. These results suggesteitherthatthe effect of ethnicity is not due to degree of familiaritywith thesis-supportargumentationor, alternatively,that the self-reportmeasureof familiaritywas inadequate. Effects of Site Since the argumentativewriting curriculum was independently implemented by two teachers in different cities (and thus in differentschool districts, schools, and classrooms), one might expect that intersite differences in teachers,teaching styles,schools, and classroomswould resultin differentout-

EmpoweringEducation


67

comes. However, analysis of variance showed no significanteffect of site on development,F(l, 106) = 0.92, j>= .34, MS(E) = 1.42, or voice, F(l, 106) = 1.02,p = .31,MS(E) = 0.72. The strongest predictor was either treatment group or the group by ethnicity interaction, depending on which predictor was entered first. Students in the experimentalgroup improvedby roughly the same amount regardlessof site. It appearsthatthe experimentaltreatment was effective in both sites despite differences in the site variables:At each site students in the experimental class (except for the small group of Whites) experienced significantlygreater gains in the development and voice exhibited in their essays,relativeto students in the correspondingcomparison class of students.

The distribution of essayswas as follows:Category 1- allpyramidelements includedin orderwithout additions:1.8 percent;Category 2- all pyramidelements included, modified in order or number: 43.6 percent; Category 3missingone or more pyramidelements, and does not exhibit claim-support structure: 1.8 percent; Category 4missing one or more pyramidelements but exhibits claim-support structure: 52.7 percent. Thus, only 1.8 percent of students applied the pyramidheuristic rigidly. A substantialpercentage (43.6) applied the heuristic fully and flexibly. Only 1.8 percent failed to demonstrate any applicationof the heuristic. A substantial percentage (52.7) of students demonstratedpartialapplicationof the heuristic.These resultssuggestthat explicit heuristicsdo not necessarilylead to rote application.

Effectsof Gender Analysisof varianceshowed no significant effect of the gender by group interaction on development gains, F(l, 106) = 0.65, p = .42, MS(E) = 1.41 or voice gains, F(l, 106) = 0.03, p = .86, MS(E) = 0.71. This resultfails to support the hypothesis (Annas & Tenney, 1996) that explicit teaching of thesissupport argumentationmay be less effective for females versus males, have negative effects on female voices, and thereforebe biased againstfemales. Application of Heuristics Analysis of EG posttest essaysshowed thatEG studentsused the pyramidheuristic flexibly.If the heuristic was only used partially,essaysgenerally demonstrated basic claim-support structure. 68

Two Examples The quantitativeand qualitativeanalyses and results are illustrated next through two sets of pre- and posttest essays selected as being representative of the experimental groups pre- and posttest levels of achievement. These examples,showing gains of 1 point on development and voice, clarify and illustratethe average0.64 point gain in development and 0.48 point gain in voice achieved by the experimental group (Table 1). The essayswere written by two students describedby their teachers as struggling writers. These examples illustratehow the strengthof argumentativeessayswas analyzedand how argumentswere parsed. To facilitate discussion,sentences are labeled as


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


a main claim,subclaim,reason,fact,defense of values, if-then statement, acknowledgment of counterargument, answer,conclusion,emotionalappeal,or referenceto personalexperience.Credibility appeals generated through mature tone and word choice were not labeledbecausethey were not localized to particularsentences. Pretests On the pretest each writer scored 3 points on development,i.e., established a primaryclaimbut providedonly weak support- illustrativeof the achievement of experimentalwriters on the pretest. Each essayreceived 3 points for voice, indicating firm convictions and moderately immaturelanguage. Juanita(an HispanicAmericangirl) wrote a very brief pretest essay: DearEditor: I think that there shouldn'tbe a law of throwing toxic wastes into the ocean (MAIN CLAIM)becausethey said they dumpit wherethe oceanis so deepby the the timetheleakreachesplantsandanimals, waterhasgreatlyweakendanyharmfuleffects(REASON)so it is o.k.to dumpit in the ocean(CONCLUSION). Sincerely, Juanita The essay only received 3 points for development because it lacks a strong connection between claim and reason.Juanitas claim is that it is o.k. to dump toxic waste in the deep part of the ocean. Her reason is that water weakens harmful effects.However, she doesn't provide a crucial fact: Most ocean plants and animalslive near the shore, not the deep part of the ocean.

To score 4 points on development, she needed to use the reading materialattached to the writing prompt that explained that few plantsand animalslive in the deep part of the ocean and by the time toxic waste leaks reach coastal waters,harmfuleffectsaregreatlyweakened.Juanitas omission of this key fact greatlyweakens her argument. The essay received only 3 points for voice becauseJuanitagenerated no emotional appealand only a weak credibility appeal (through a mature tone). To score 4 points on voice, she needed to generate either (a) an emotional appeal- using vivid languageor examples to convey sincerity and evoke the readers emotions;or (b) a strongercredibility appeal- building the reader's trust through careful consideration of the issues and opposing viewpoints or by relating personal experiences with toxic waste. Michael (anAfricanAmericanboy) wrote an episodic pretestessayin a style thatCazden (1988) andMichaels(1981) found to be characteristicof African American children, in contrast to the topic-centered discourse characteristic ofWhites. To readersexpecting the latter form, Michael'sessayappearsto be disorganized- he strung together reasons without elaboration,a referenceto personal experience, an emotional appeal, a loosely connected fact, and a puzzling claim: I thinkpeopleshouldstop throwingtoxic wastein the ocean (MAIN CLAIM)becauseits nasty,andthe seafoodthatwe eat couldhavea disease(REASONS).I rememberwhenI wentto thebeachin SantaCruz I was swimmingI got kind of scaredbe-

EmpoweringEducation


69

causeI thought it was a animalgoing around me, so I picked it up and it was a dirty pipe

(PERSONALEXPERIENCE).Its even

bad to throw cans in the water because a animalcould be swimming in the water,and it could get caught aroundtheir mouth and nose, and they won't be able to breathany-

more (REASON/EMOTIONAL AP-

PEAL). Toxic waste is even bad because it pollutes the water that we drink (REASON). The chemical even sink into the ground,where our drinking water is at and it posionous the water (FACT).Its not good to dump toxic waste in water because it cause birth defects, cancer and other diseases (REASONS). Only about 1%of the drink water is good out the world (SUBCLAIM).

In order to score 4 points on development, he needed to connect his reasons and claim by explaining how dumping toxic waste into the ocean causesbirth defects, cancer,and disease;harms animals; and poisons drinking water. He seems to ignore the information in the reading material attached to the writing prompt explaining that ocean wateris not suitablefor drinkingwaterand, therefore,that ocean dumping does not poison drinking water. He correctly points out that toxic wastes,if dumped in landfills, poison drinking water. However, this is an argument in favor of, not against, ocean dumping. He ends with the baffling claim that only one percent of our drinking water is good. Michael included a weak credibiland a weak emotional appealin his ity essay,resultingin a weak voice. He related his personalexperience with polluted oceans ("When I went to the beach in SantaCruz I was swimming I got kind of scared"),but fails to con70

vince the readerthat he is qualified to speak about the dangersof toxic waste dumping. Furthermore,his emotional appealsuffersfrom impreciselanguage. It seems unlikely that cans would get caught aroundthe mouths and noses of animals- perhapshe meant the plastic nooses for sodacans.Finally,his language seems immature. For example, while "nasty"is potentiallyevocative,Michael uses "nasty"as a reason supporting his claim. The word "because"cues the readerto expect a causalor logical reason, not an emotional appeal. In the wrong place, "nasty"appearsto be an immaturechoice of words. Michaels immature,impreciselanguage and undeveloped,weak, disorganized reasoning detract from his credibilityand thus his voice. If seafood "could have a disease,"what are the effects on humans? Does he mean that seafood could spreaddisease?Also, seeing a dirty pipe in the water does not illustratethat pollution is severe or has severeconsequences.His credibilityand voice are undermined by his failureto consider,in a matureway,the strongest reasonsfor and againstocean dumping. To summarize, the pretest essays lackeddeveloped connections between reasonsand claims.Writersdid not provide adequatefacts,defend their values, or explain their reasoning through ifthen statements.Writers either did not generate credibility or emotional appeals, or generated appeals that were undermined by careless or imprecise wording,lackof considerationfor stronger arguments for and against their claims, unpersuasive anecdotes, or an immaturetone.


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


Experimental Posttests Qualitative analysis of experimental posttests showed that students used more relevant,stronger,betterorganized facts and if-then statements and that they developed stronger connections between reasonsand claims compared to their pretest essays.Overall, writers exhibited strongervoices by including emotional appeals or by generating a credibilityappealthrough carefulconsideration of opposing arguments, a mature tone, more precise wording, or persuasivereferencesto personalexperiences. Qualitative analyses also showed that studentsdid not merely follow rote procedures but learned to apply the principles underlying the pyramidand bridge heuristics. The dangers of rote applicationare that gains would be lost as soon as procedures are forgotten, transferto unfamiliarsituationswould be limited, and students would be unable to flexibly adapt the heuristics as needed. To addressthese concerns, I examined the experimentalposttestessaysto see if information from the materialaccompanyingthe writing prompt was being mechanically plugged into the pyramid or bridge heuristic or if the information was smoothly integrated and the heuristics appeared to be flexibly adapted to the topic, reading material,and audience (principal, U.S. President,newspaperreaders,etc.). The qualitativeanalysisand findings are illustrated next through Juanitas and Michaels posttest essays. Each of these posttest essaysreceived 4 points for development,indicatingthat the writer establisheda claim and pro-

vided strong but not well developed reasons. In the firstexampleJuanitaargued stronglyin favorof a law againstdrinking alcohol. Throughout the essayshe elaborated her theme that alcohol is addictive and impairsjudgment. Her focused, logically developed connections between her reasonand her claim strengthenedher argument.She adapted the pyramid and bridge heuristics by integratingthree reasons.She began by statinga clearclaim ("thereshould be a law against drinking alcohol") and supporting it with a reason ("when people drink they make mistakes"): People Should Not Drink Alcohol I think thatthereshouldbe a law against drinkingalcohol(MAIN CLAIM).When peopledrinktheymakemistakesthatthey regretthe next day(REASON). Whenpeopledrinkalcohol,theycanget in caraccidents,goingoff the roador driving on thewrongside(FACT).Peoplewho drinkalot can become addictedand they arecalledalcoholics(REASON/FACT). Alcoholimis a problemthatonly a few peoplebecomeunaddicted,alot of people trybut theystillget the urge(FACT). Whenalcoholwearsoff on peoplethey sometimesrealizethat alcohol is ruining theirlivesandhurtingtheirfamilybutothers sometimesdont realize (REASON/ FACT;EMOTIONAL APPEAL). In conclusionI thinkthat alcoholis a problemandit needsto be stoppedbecause alot of people everyyear are dying from alcholbecausethey couldntor they didn't want to quit drinking(CONCLUSION; EMOTIONAL APPEAL). She elaboratedon the "mistakes"that people "regret" by explaining that "when people drink alcohol, they can get in car accidents,going off the road or driving on the wrong side." She

EmpoweringEducation


71

added a second reason supporting the claim:Drinking can be addictive,a point that greatlystrengthenedthe argument thata law is needed to stop people from drinking. In the fourth paragraphshe added a third reason:Alcohols effects areinsidious.The second and thirdreasons elaborate on the first, suggesting that the negative effects of drinking are compounded by addiction and insidious influence. Thus,Juanitaintegrated three reasonsthat reinforce each other and their connections to the claim. These elements blend the second and thirdlevelsof the pyramid.Juanitaended by summarizing her entire argument and punctuating it with an emotional appeal. Juanita's essay appears relatively clear,focused, and logically developed, presumablybecauseshe focused her argument on one line of reasoning and developed each point from her previous point. In doing so,she modified and adapted the pyramid heuristic. Instead of plugging source material into the pyramidformat (main claim,two separate reasons,counterargument,and response to the counterargument), she integrated three reasons (that alcohol impairsjudgment and is addictive and insidious),using her own words,into a coherent argumentthat appearsstrong despite omission of an answer to counterarguments.Flexible use of the pyramidheuristic to produce a moderately strong argument suggests that Juanitalearned to use it as a tool, rather than a rote procedure,for successfulargumentation. She received 5 points for voice for employing emotional appeals("alcohol 72

is ruining their lives and hurting their family;""alot of people every year are dying from alchol") and establishinga sympathetic,maturetone that enhances her credibility ("when people drink they make mistakesthat they regretthe next day;""people who drink alot can become addicted;""alcoholimis a problem that only a few people become unaddicted,alot of people try but they still get the urge").While taking a sympathetic approach, her conviction is clear:"Alcohol is a problemand it needs to be stopped." The reasoned,logical characterand strongvoice of the posttest,in comparison with the pretest, essay is notable becauseJuanitadislikedwriting andwas inattentiveto the teacher'spre-writing instruction,preferringto socialize with her friends instead of composing. The pretestessayfavoringdumping of toxic waste into the ocean is extremely short- less than half the length of the posttest- leaving the reader to figure out the connection between her reason and claim and omitting credibility or emotional appeals. In the second example Michael spent most of his posttest essayanalyzing reasons that people drink alcohol and provided thoughtful responses: I thinkthatpeopleshouldn'tdrinkalcohol (MAINCLAIM). Somepeopledrinkalcoholbecausethey may need attention to escape reality (COUNTERARGUMENT).I thinkthat whenpeopletryto solveproblems bydrinkit start more ing problems(ANSWER). Somepeoplemaydrinkbecausetheymaybe pressuredby family'smembersor friends (COUNTERARGUMENT). Some peoplealso drinkbecausethey maythink


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


they appear or be apart of an grown-up (COUNTERARGUMENT) . People can startdrinkingalcohol because they may go out to a club,and have a couple of drink then get addicted to it (COUNTERARGUMENT/ ANSWER) . Other's may even drink to relax,over shyness, and to be a part of a group Some (COUNTERARGUMENT). people even think when you drink they feel make them-selves good (COUNTERARGUMENT). Like I said people may think that alcohol makes avoid their problems,but it don't because people sometimes get tipsy, and when they get home they beat their kid, and the next day in jail, they wondered why their charged for abuse,and why their in jail (ANSWER). I say that people shouldn't drink alcohol because people come from partiesafter they havebeen drinking,and then startdriving (REASON). My whole point in this essay is that I don't wan't know more lives takingaway,and other s don't either (EMOTIONAL APPEAL). That'swhy people shouldn'tdrink alcohol (CONCLUSION).

This essayis remarkablebecausethe writer seemed ill-preparedto produce an essayof this quality.On a survey regardingdiscourseat home, he estimated that he rarelygave his opinion and supported it with reasons- on average,just one to three daysper month. Thus, he believed that he was relativelyunfamiliar with the thesis-supportform of argumentation.Disruptivein class,he had difficultyfocusing his attention. On the pretest (above), his argument against ocean dumping of toxic waste seemed disorganizedand confused.His posttest, however,demonstrateda more mature understandingof the issue and a relatively articulateresponse. Michael blended his own knowledge with information and ideas from the source texts and formulateda connected, logical argument in his own words. Instead of following the pyramid format,he took the skeptics viewAfter building his case with logical, point from the beginning and built an point by point answers,he punctuated argument by acknowledging and rehis point with an emotional appeal ("I sponding in a thoughtful way to the don'twan'tknow more livestakingaway, reasonsthatpeople drink.This approach and other's don't either") and an emsuggeststhat he understoodand applied the claim of restatement ("That's the principle that a strong argument phatic respondsto opposing views. why people shouldn'tdrinkalcohol"). In his posttestessay,Michael shifted The essay exhibits ownership and voice throughthoughtfulconsideration from the episodic style characteristicof of the issuesand sincereresponsesdem- AfricanAmericanchildrento the topiconstratinga degree of sophisticationand centered style characteristic of essays maturity that helps the reader to trust written by White students (Cazden, the writer,generatinga strongcredibil- 1988; Michaels, 1981). While the changes have been representedas imity appeal: persuasion through the writer'scharacteror ethos. He received provements,a concern raisedby cultural theorists such as Gee (1989) and 4 points for voice, downgraded due to somewhat immature use of language, Knoblauch (1990) is that the teacherin but an improvement from his 3 point this situation is imposing a culturallydominant form of discourse on a miscore on the pretest. EmpoweringEducation


73

nority child. In response,Delpit (1995) and other minority educatorshave argued that command of dominant cultural discourse forms (e.g., thesis-support argumentation)servesto empower minoritiesand failureto explicitlyteach these forms to minorities only serves to disenfranchisethem. She is troubled by the suggestion that teaching dominantformsof discourseinevitablycauses minorities to deny their primaryidentities and is concerned that educators might view such teaching as questionable based on their sense of justice and fair play. Instead of avoiding explicit instruction of these forms, Delpit suggests that teachersclarifythat the forms are most appropriatefor academic and workplaceuse and should be learned as one learnsa second language,to be used on appropriateoccasionsandnot assubstitutesfor culturalstyles used at home and other situations. For the present study I clarifiedthis issue with students in each classroom before instruction

activities. Explicit instruction led to gains in voice as well as logical development. The examples also illustrateways that cultural minority writers in the experimental group demonstrated an understandingof principles,ratherthan mere applicationof rote procedures,for argumentation.The writers transferred knowledge about argumentationto different topics and audiences. The students' gains were not contingent on recallof specific procedures,suggesting thatthey learnedto applythe principles underlying the heuristics.

Knowledgeof Criteria and Strategies Analysisof the qualitativeinterviewdata collected from the stratified random sample of 36 students 18 students in the comparison group and 18 students in the experimentalgroup- supportthe conclusion that the intervention increased students' knowledge of argument criteria and strategiesfor sound argumentation.Using a modified verbegan. sion of the Development scale, ratings The above examples illustrate of issues and of the transcriptsshowed that students' consideration thoughtful the knowledge of criteria was significantly opposing viewpoints, reinforcing writers' credibility.Restrained use of higher for the EG versusthe CG, f(34) = 2.97, p = .01, mean(EG) = 4.67, emotional language generated emotional appeals.These appealsestablished mean(CG) = 3.11. Strategicknowledge the writer'sconvictions,ownership,and was significantlyhigher for the EG vervoice- the feeling thatthe writerswere sus the CG, f(34) = 2.32, p = .03, = = speakingfrom the heart. The quantita- mean(EG) 4.44, mean(CG) 3.33. tive gains in voice scoresby studentsin the EG,comparedto studentsin the CG, Understanding of Criteria suggest that heuristics for structuring To determine students' knowledge of argumentsand connecting reasonsand criteria,each student was asked:"What claimsservedto developstudents'voices really counts in writing a strong argumore than simple immersion in pro- ment? Suppose I gave you another student'spaperand askedyou to tell me cess-oriented argumentative writing 74


•

Volume 33

•

August 1998


if it's a strong argument or not, how would you know,what would you look for?"In response,78 percent of students in the comparison group focused on conventionsregardingspellingor punctuation,providedvague answers,or indicated they did not know the answer, e.g., "periods, commas, capital letters, and indenting"or "what'simportantthe main point- the main thing that explainsit all."Only 22 percentfocused on how reasonssupportedor were connected to the claim. In contrast,39 percent of students in the experimental group focused on conventionsregardingspellingor punctuation,provided vague answers,or indicated they did not know the answer, whereas 61 percent focused on how reasons supported or were connected to the claim:"their reasons,their facts, and how the sentences support those facts and values and stuff;""what your facts are and what you put to support them;""how they connected their reason and opinion and see if that'sstrong enough;" "If they have something to backup theirreasons;""Whatyour facts areand what you put to supportthem;" "If they put why their reasons are good- explain why they put that reason;" "Their reasons- why the reasons are important;""What really counts is that you have good reasons."Thus, studentsin the experimentalgroupstressed the key principle of justifying not only the claim with reasonsbut also backing up the reasons themselves.EG (versus CG) studentsdemonstratedgreater,statisticallysignificant,focus on supportfor the claim, rather than conventions [%2 (l,«=36)=5.6,p