Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading ... - Wiley Online Library

Review of Research

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research George E. Newell The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

Richard Beach University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Jamie Smith, Jennifer VanDerHeide The Ohio State University, USA Consulting Editors: Deanna Kuhn, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, USA Jerry Andriessen, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

ABSTR ACT

Acquiring argumentative reading and writing practices reflects a key component of recent curricular reforms in schools and universities throughout the United States and the world as well as a major challenge to teachers of reading and writing in K–12 and college writing classrooms. In this review, we consider the contributions of two research perspectives, cognitive and social, that researchers have employed in the study of the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing. We address two basic questions: How do these perspectives with their own disciplinary frameworks and logics of inquiry interactively inform how researchers study argumentative reading and writing, and consequently, how have these orientations informed pedagogical knowledge that may support teachers’ understanding of what argumentation is and how it may be taken up in the educational contexts? We analyze relevant conceptual and empirical studies by considering assumptions underlying the cognitive and social disciplinary perspectives, especially in terms of the warrants that those perspectives assume. We also interrogate how these perspectives’ logics of inquiry reveal assumptions about the transfer of learning as supported by instruction and other practices, such as classroom discussion, computer-supported collaborations, and other forms of instructional support. Using empirical studies of the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing conducted in grades K–12 and college writing classrooms, we delineate the assumptions that drive the two perspectives and their instructional consequences, arguing that researchers and teachers need an understanding of their assumptions about knowledge and transfer to establish a clear and coherent relationship between theory and practice. We offer a vision for research that integrates the cognitive and social perspectives to argue that the work of literacy research is to reveal cognitive processes and instructional practices that teachers can promote and students can employ for learning how to do argumentative reading and writing.

A

cquiring argumentative1 reading and writing strategies and practices represents a key component of recent curricular reforms in schools and universities throughout the United States and the world.

These reforms are often based on efforts to engage students in debates that echo the controversies and discussions in their daily lives, popular culture, the workplace, professions, and academic disciplines (Andrews, 2010;

Reading Research Quarterly • 46(3) • pp. 273–304 • dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4 • © 2011 International Reading Association

273

Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, 2003; Applebee, 1996; Graff, 2003; Street, 2004; van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, 2002). Perhaps one of the more dramatic examples of the growing significance of argumentation is the emphasis of argumentative reading and writing in the Common Core State Standards for English language arts for grades 6–12 in U.S. schools (Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association, 2010). Nevertheless, the case for the value of all students to read, write, and engage in oral argument is not always easy to make. On the one hand, although teachers may recognize the importance of argumentative reading and writing as central to acquiring academic literacies, they are often leery of introducing what may evolve into conflict and one-upmanship employed in the media, that is, argument consisting of competitive, combative debate (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) that leads to an “adversarial frame of mind” (Tannen, 1999, p. 4). In addition, given their experiences with arguments in the media, students may then assume that in formulating claims, they simply need to summarize their claims to achieve the goal of convincing audiences without providing supporting evidence, considering counterarguments, or changing their own or others’ stances on an issue. On the other hand, the ability to identify the underlying argument, and its claims, warrants, and evidence, in reading and the ability to compose a high-quality argument, and its claims, warrants, and evidence, in writing are critical skills for academic success (Graff, 2003; Hillocks, 2010, 2011; Kuhn, 2005).

Because each perspective has its own wide range of ways of defining argumentation and its distinctive logics of inquiry, the result is often confusion and sometimes conflict, as literacy researchers with their predilections for particular logics of inquiry are inclined to ignore research perspectives that are unfamiliar to them (cf. Green, Camilli, & Elmore, 2006; Shulman, 1997). In this review, we urge that the study of argumentation in school settings needs to be fully and honestly multidisciplinary, allowing researchers to learn from each of the perspectives. If researchers accept this view, they will take conflicting results as interesting situations to examine more carefully, rather than seek to dismiss them as methodological artifacts. Our second goal is to bring to bear an integrated notion of argumentation to develop a coherent and robust approach to research that informs the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing in educational contexts. This goal positions us primarily as educational researchers, that is, as people doing research in education for the sake of teaching and learning in educational settings. In our studies of argumentation, for example, we are particularly interested in what Ball and Forzani (2007) described as the “instructional dynamic”:

Conceptualizing the Review

Although we recognize that literacy researchers, broadly conceived, are interested in a range of contexts, for our purposes, we are primarily interested in fostering learning to argue and arguing to learn in educational contexts. The task that we have before us is to envision the kinds of classrooms where students are interested in what teachers teach and in reading and writing arguments that are of significance to them and the culture at large. We think that studies from both the cognitive and social perspectives can contribute to such a vision.

Goals for This Review Because we believe in the importance of students acquiring argumentative reading and writing, we use this critical review to make the case for more research on teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing that integrates a range of research perspectives for how and why to conduct studies of this important aspect of academic learning. In spite of its significance both in and out of school, at present, argumentation remains poorly defined or perhaps overly defined by specific sets of assumptions related to research, theoretical work, and teaching and learning (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 2006; Berrill, 1996; Coirier & Andriessen, 2000; Fulkerson, 1996). In an effort to reimagine the study of teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing in educational contexts, this review takes up two goals. The first is the construction of a concept of argumentation that permits integration of two dominant research perspectives for the study of argumentation: cognitive and social.

274

Education is inherently transactional; an orientation to probing the processes inside instances of education is what makes education research special….Research in education investigates questions about the instructional dynamic at play in problems directly related to schooling and the formal educational process. It treats instruction, at various grain sizes, as the key variable in educational problems. (p. 532)

Defining Argumentative Reading and Writing How might we define argumentative reading and writing that permits critical analysis of empirical studies of teaching and learning as well as integration of research perspectives? Both teaching and research often rely singularly on textual or structural assumptions grounded in a particular interpretation of Toulmin’s (1958/2003) model: Argumentative reading and writing both involve identification of a thesis (also called a claim), supportive

Reading Research Quarterly • 46(3)

evidence (empirical or experiential), and assessment of warrants connecting the thesis, evidence, and situation constituting an argument.2 In contrast to simply attempting to persuade someone to believe or do something, evidence-based argumentation involves making a claim supported by reasons or evidence from multiple sources that connects to the claim in a principled way. This structural/formalist view of argument is effective in foregrounding patterns such as argument schemata (Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2002) and social practices (Lunsford, 2002; Prior, 2005). Yet, such a view, especially when it excludes other perspectives, also has constraints in that it often assumes a conduit metaphor (Prior, 1998). Structural notions of argumentation are necessary but insufficient for analyzing the complex argumentative social practices in specific literacy events. As literacy researchers, we ground our view of argumentative reading and writing in language used in rhetorical contexts or literacy events (Barton, 2007). Therefore, discussions of the difficulty of argumentative reading and writing need to treat argument as a set of social practices with a variety of uses across a range of different literacy events. Given our goal of this review of applying two different research perspectives, the cognitive and the social, to examine how teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing can be integrated into a larger vision of research, we believe that Halliday’s (1970, 1994) metafunctions or uses of language offer a useful tool for the development of a unified theory. To clarify, rather than adopting Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics, the metafunctions serve only as a heuristic that allows us to be inclusive in our review of argumentative reading and writing. Our approach to argumentation is grounded in Halliday’s categories of (1) the ideational, (2) the interpersonal, and (3) the textual. The first refers to how language is used to organize, understand, and express both experiences and the logic of ideas; the second refers to how language allows participants to take on roles and express an understanding of emotions and attitudes to argue and discuss in a range of literacy events; and the third refers to how language organizes what the speaker/writer wants to communicate to an audience. Through this review, it will become apparent that each perspective tends to favor one metafunction of argument over the other. For example, in cognitive studies, argument is often described as “a rhetorical and logical form” (Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2002, p. 321) or as an argumentation scheme (Wolfe, Britt, & Butler, 2009) applied as an evaluation tool (Yeh, 1998) leading to the formulation of cognitive-processing models for guiding instruction in argumentative reading and writing. Conversely, research from a social perspective tends to assume that teachers and students negotiate

argumentative forms and uses (Lunsford, 2002), such as Toulmin’s (1958/2003) model, according to what the writer intends for the expression of ideas composed on specific occasions for specific audiences who may assume specific conventions (Evensen, 2002).

Search Methods In this article, we review empirical studies of teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing in grades K–12 in English language arts classrooms and in college-level writing contexts published between 1985 and 2011. Although there has been extensive research on arguing to learn across all subjects, particularly in science (Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008; see Cavagnetto, 2010, for a review of 54 studies), our review focuses on learning to argue in kindergarten through college English language arts, reading, and writing subject areas that are primarily responsible for the development of literacy skills and practices, including argumentative reading and writing (Applebee, 1981, 1984; Hillocks, 1999, 2007; Langer & Applebee, 1987). We tried to be thorough in our search for relevant research, to define explicit rules for searching, and to define rules for what would be involved or excluded from the literature. We therefore included only research that • P rimarily included argumentative reading and writing produced by school-age students in English language arts/reading classrooms and college writing classrooms • O ccurred in K–12 English language arts/reading and college writing classrooms in Englishspeaking countries • Was published between 1985, marking a shift to multiple perspectives in literacy research, and 2011 We began by reviewing studies published in refereed journals published between 1985 and 2011 that focus specifically on reading and writing argumentative text defined as a type of critical thinking and rhetorical production involving the identification of a thesis (also called a claim), supportive evidence (empirical or experiential), and assessment of warrants that connect the thesis, evidence, and situation within which the argument is being made. Beginning with a hand search of references listed in relevant reviews of research using the terms argumentative writing, argumentative reading, English language arts, reading, and college writing, we identified journals that publish research in writing and reading (e.g., Reading Research Quarterly, Research in the Teaching of English, Written Communication) as well as journals that publish research on a wider array of topics (e.g., Discourse Processes, The Elementary School Journal).

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

275

We then conducted manual shelf and online searches of all journals that publish articles reporting data-based research on argumentative reading and writing. Given the rather limited number of empirical studies of argumentative reading and writing in English language arts/ reading and college writing classrooms published in refereed journals, we adopted a generous view of what constituted an empirical work, and some of the studies included only cursory information about methodology. We also expanded our search to include studies that were published in edited scholarly books. We also want to make explicit our stance regarding various and sometimes competing research perspectives shaping research methods and analysis for the study of teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing. As literacy scholars, researchers, and teachers, our work is primarily framed by sociocultural psychological theories of reading and writing that share the assumption that to understand how people take up and make sense of literacy practices in their own lives, researchers must seek to understand how culturally and historically situated meanings are constructed, reconstructed, and transformed through social mediation (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1998). From a literacy practice perspective, we perceive argumentation as a social practice that agents (i.e., speakers, writers, readers) take up in activity settings, such as classrooms, using the mediated means of semiotic tools (e.g., speech, written language, diagrams, drawings) and that agents and mediational means form the basic unit of analysis for understanding the genesis of psychological development. Despite the widely held assumption that knowledge and meaning making exist only in the mind or the external world, we understand these processes as social and also negotiated as social practices, resulting in the uses of argumentative reading and writing in particular literacy events (Barton, 2007). Rather than perceiving the argumentative cognitive processes of goal formulation and elaboration or schema application as in the individual mind, Smagorinsky (2011) noted that a sociocultural perspective defines these cognitive processes as mediated by cultural tools that tie cognition to the setting of mentation; thinking is situated in settings and is inseparable from the particular tasks, purposes, addressees, genres of activity, and other factors of communicative importance….when I study cognition in relation to writing and other forms of composition, I need to situate that thinking within communities of practice that might be disciplinary, community-based, and otherwise originating in and mediated by specific forms of cultural practice. (pp. 406–407)

Such assumptions position our perspective in sometimes overlapping, sometimes parallel, or sometimes mutually exclusive relationships with the logics of inquiry used by researchers in the study of argumentative

276

reading and writing. In our review, we adopt a dialogic approach to explore alternative frameworks of a cognitive perspective and a social perspective on argumentation to consider useful contributions of both frameworks as well as tensions between the two. We therefore adopted the stance that, as reviewers, we must engage in our own collaborative argument, that is, as a dialogue to enhance the understanding of argument: “People talk with each other, listen to each other, argue with each other, and mutually decide whether a dialogue is possible and, if it is, how far the usefulness of that dialogue extends for each interlocutor” (Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris, 2005, p. 206).

Challenges in Teaching Argumentative Reading and Writing Refocusing discussions of argumentative reading and writing as collaborative social practices moves beyond traditional conceptions of teaching the persuasive essay or the position/support argumentative essay to what Langer (2002) referred to as “high literacy,” that is, not just basic literacy but a “deeper knowledge of the ways in which reading, writing, language, and content work together” (p. 3). In a recent report, Applebee and Langer (2006) examined students’ writing performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) from 1998 to 2002. Perhaps most relevant to our review is a concern that Applebee and Langer expressed regarding the types of writing that teachers assigned, as reported by Persky, Daane, and Jin (2003): over 40% of the students at Grade 8 and a third at Grade 12 report writing essays requiring analysis or interpretation at most a few times a year. This is problematic since it is this type of more complex writing that is needed for advanced academic success in high school as well as college coursework. (Applebee and Langer, 2006, p. 8)

As a result, recent studies of students’ writing performance reveal that only a fraction of students (i.e., 3% of eighth graders, 6% of 12th graders) can make informed, critical judgments about written text (Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005). Only 15% of 12th-grade students performing at the proficient level were able to write well-organized essays in which they took clear positions and consistently supported those positions, using transitions to lead the reader from one part of the essay to another (Perie et al., 2005). Moreover, given the need to integrate argumentative reading and writing instruction, one major challenge in teaching argument is that students have difficulty mastering advanced reading comprehension and critical literacy skills in core disciplines associated with engaging in and critiquing effective arguments, especially in science, history, and literature (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Carnegie Council


on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010; Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009). Students also have difficulty recognizing and applying argumentative text structures (Chambliss & Murphy, 2002; Freedman & Pringle, 1984), generating evidence (Kuhn, 1991), and offering relevant reasons, counterarguments, and rebuttals (McCann, 1989). One explanation for students’ difficulties in reading and writing arguments is that teaching argumentation is complex and demanding. First, unlike other types of reading and writing tasks, argumentation involves a more sophisticated set of genre practices compared with narration and exposition in that a range of genres (e.g., letters, speeches, essays, sermons, reports, testimonials) can function as arguments, challenging the formalist notion that there is a single argumentative essay genre form (Freedman, 1996). Thus, teachers may not always know what content and procedural knowledge are required for learning argumentative reading and writing (Hillocks, 1999, 2010). Second, there is widespread agreement that school teachers often try to maintain a conflict-free zone when it comes to learning (Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985), such that maintaining the peace takes precedence over fostering disagreements and other possible sources of conflict that may arise when teaching argumentative reading and writing. Another challenge relates to students’ conflicted perceptions of the purposes and audiences for formulating arguments in a classroom setting (Durst, 1999; Graff, 2003; Kuhn, 2005). In that setting, although students may be asked to convince peers or outside audiences of the validity of their claims, students also know that typically their actual primary audience is their teacher, who needs to be convinced of the validity of their claims, especially if their performances are evaluated (Applebee, 1981, 1984). In the United States, Melzer’s (2009) national survey of 2,000 college writing assignments found that only 17% involved writing for argumentative purposes for audiences other than the teacher. With the teacher as the primary audience, students may perceive argumentative writing as simply completing an assignment rather than attempting to change other actual audiences’ beliefs or ideas. Students are then evaluated for demonstrating their ability to engage in argument without experiencing the potential consequences of the effectiveness of their arguments based on feedback from actual audiences beyond their teacher’s feedback (Berland & Reiser, 2009). Moreover, students may be reluctant to adopt stances that they believe their teacher may not endorse (Beck, 2006). Another challenge has to do with a largely formalist orientation of much reading and writing instruction that emphasizes, for example, learning to make main point inferences about expository or narrative texts in preparation for standardized reading tests or learning

the five-paragraph essay format in preparation for standardized writing tests (Hillocks, 2002). Formulating arguments about texts requires not only the ability to identify and provide relevant, sufficient supporting evidence from a text but also the ability to make explicit the warrants or assumptions linking the thesis to the reasons and evidence by drawing on lived world and literary knowledge (Johannessen, Kahn, & Walter, 2009), something that is difficult for many students in reading and writing texts (Persky et al., 2003). However, students may not acquire such literacy practices when their textbooks often favor narrative and explanatory texts over argumentative ones (Calfee & Chambliss, 1987). This formalist reading instruction may also limit students’ ability to critically analyze argumentative texts. In her research on 12th graders’ application of argumentative macroprocesses, Chambliss (1995) found that when given a text with no claim, these older teen readers were able to infer a claim based on the data in the text, although their inferred claims were less accurate than claims in the text. In another study, when fourth and fifth graders were asked to respond to an argumentative text, they could infer the gist of it, but most were not able to apply an argumentative structure for representing their understanding of the text (Chambliss & Murphy, 2002). Teachers may also have diff iculty articulating rules of evidence that govern high-quality argumentative reading and writing (Kuhn, 2005; Langer, 1992; Langer & Applebee, 1987). Fundamental concepts such as causality and proof, evidence or warrants for claims, assumptions that can be taken for granted, and premises that must be made explicit and defended lie at the heart of effective argumentation. Studies of school writing and reading have documented that teachers are often unaware of these concepts and thus do not know how to provide instructional support for learning such concepts (Applebee, 1991; Hillocks, 1999, 2007, 2010; Langer, 1992; Langer & Applebee, 1987; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). One response to these concerns is Kuhn’s (2005) program of research on the development of argumentation, in which she attempted to construct a “cognitive roadmap of the skills that need to develop…. teachers need such a roadmap if they are to plan and implement effective instruction and assess its success” (pp. 116–117).

Toward an Interactive Theory of Argumentative Reading and Writing To meet some of these instructional challenges, we believe that the study of argumentative reading and writing in school settings requires an interactive theory (cf. Flower, 1989) that combines the study of argument as cognition with argument as a set of social practices.


277

Currently, literacy research assumes competing images of argumentation that reflect a cognitive/social practices polarization that limits understanding and threatens to divide the study of argumentative reading and writing with increasing degrees of separation between and among theories. This paradigmatic divide suggests the need to understand more fully how cognitive processes and social practices do in fact interact in specific but significant situations. How do these different processes and practices feed on one another? Our intention here is not to propose a specific theory but to explore some ways that research and, by extension, teaching and learning may benefit from considering how research in school settings can create a well-supported, theoretical understanding of this interaction in studies of the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing, an exploration that could also apply to all areas of literacy research. The fundamental tension we see between studies of argumentation within a cognitive versus a social practices orientation seems to occur around the issue of the appropriate unit of analysis. How can a cognitive commitment to understanding individual purpose and selfregulated learning strategies be reconciled with a social practices commitment to the study of literacy events and practices shaped by specific social, cultural, or political perspectives? Moreover, the interactive vision also needs to inform literacy instruction. Although we are suggesting the uses of multiple conceptual frameworks, the common goal is studying how readers and writers understand themselves as constructors of meaning within unique social and cultural events that can both nurture and consume an individual writer. Educators do not work with abstractions; they work with students. Teachers need an interactive vision of the reading and writing arguments that can address the hurdles that students often face, that can account for the cognitive and social sources of both success and failure, and that can talk about the experience of reading and writing arguments by being adequately fine grained and situated in that experience. We want to work toward a framework that acknowledges the pressures and the potential that the literacy event can provide and at the same time explains how readers and writers negotiate that event, create their own goals, and develop a sense of themselves as problem solvers, speakers, or subjects who create meaning and affect other people through the arguments they read and write. In asking for an examination of how research on cognitive processes and social practices interact, we do not want to suggest that we need a single image of teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing or a single integrated theory; literacy is too complex a phenomenon, and history tells us that single visions rarely satisfy many people for very long. What we would

278

argue for is, first, the need for more balanced, multiperspective descriptions and more rigorously grounded theoretical explanations of various aspects of teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing. Second, these attempts to build integrated, theory-conscious accounts of reading and writing need, we believe, to address the apparent dichotomy of cognition and social practices in a direct way and in a spirit of open inquiry. It would be simple to frame the issues in terms of a conflict, as much of the current discussion tends to do. This review is organized around an effort to look first within and then between the cognitive perspective and the social practices perspective to ask how teaching might improve the quality of argumentative reading and writing.

Finding Common Ground: Cognitive and Social Conceptions of Transfer A primary focus of our review is on two different paradigmatic notions of what constitutes transfer or what King Beach (1999) refers to as consequential transitions between and across rhetorical events. We identify two positions that have emerged in debates regarding research on a range of different issues involving literacy learning in general and teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing in particular. The first position frames argument as a cognitive task (e.g., Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Kuo, 2007) requiring taskspecific knowledge, such as planning and problem solving, and recognition and use of a model of argument (e.g., Toulmin, 1958/2003) as the primary unit of analysis. The second position frames argument as social practices (e.g., Lunsford, 2002; Prior, 2005) that focuses on social contexts or literacy events, that is, “framing classroom research as people acting and reacting to one another” (Bloome, Beierle, Grigorenko, & Goldman, 2009, p. 314) as the primary unit of analysis. From our dialogic heuristic, we perceive these different positions as alternative, and potentially complementary, research perspectives defining different logics of inquiry (Gee & Green, 1998; Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2003) in terms of how theoretical assumptions shape research on comprehension and production of argumentative texts.

Transfer Within a Cognitive Perspective Although differences between these positions are certainly more nuanced, a cognitive approach typically employs an experimental or quasi-experimental design to examine transfer of instruction in the use of certain argument strategies or tactics (e.g., making claims, providing evidence, referencing sources, counterarguing)


and schema or structure (e.g., claim, reasons, warrants) to writing or recalling an argumentative essay. For example, researchers might examine the effects of instruction on goal setting related to the formulation of claims and audiences by identifying claims, reasons, and warrants with particular attention to cognitive developmental differences in the ability to engage in these strategies (Kuhn, 2005). Or, students’ use of collaborative reasoning in elementary school classroom discussions may be analyzed in terms of transfer of acquired argument stratagems to their comprehension and composition of written arguments (Reznitskaya et al., 2007). Studies conducted from the cognitive perspective assume that students learn argumentative reading and writing through acquiring task-specific knowledge of strategies or schemata through modeling or scaffolding. To control for different factors interacting with or independently shaping argumentative reading and writing, researchers examine these assumptions within experimental or quasi-experimental designs to test the effects of instruction. The logic of inquiry inherent in such research designs is to assume the possibility of identifying direct transfer between instruction in cognitive strategies or schemata and reading/writing outcomes, as well as assuming that one can control for other factors shaping that transfer (Reznitskaya et al., 2007; Yeh, 1998). However, experimental designs in which instructional interventions are assumed to promote transfer do not necessarily illuminate the process of teaching and learning within unique classroom literacy events. A key question related to transfer, for instance, is whether knowledge about the structural components or principles of arguments transfers to improvements in students’ understanding and writing arguments, especially for students who lack that knowledge. One way to consider transfer is how it may be affected by disparities between rhetorical contexts. The new learning or performance in event B can also differ from original learning in terms of participation in event A and differences in adopting different identities or persona, purposes, and audiences that are so pronounced that transfer breaks down. In a study of transfer performance in the teaching and learning of argumentation, Reznitskaya and colleagues (2007) designed three different postintervention tasks to measure fourth and fifth graders’ transfer of abstract principles for argument to reading and writing. The students were assigned to three different conditions related to differences in acquiring structural knowledge about argument versus engaging in argument: (1) a collaborative reasoning discussion about moral issues from a short story, (2) collaborative reasoning discussions plus lessons on argument structures and principles, and (3) routine classroom instruction. Although results demonstrated the value of collaborative reasoning in

improving written arguments, explicit teaching of argument did not have the intended effects predicted by the researchers: Students’ recall of the argumentative text did not differ across the three conditions. Drawing on argument schema theory, Reznitskaya et al. (2007) considered two explanations for why explicit instruction did not improve the students’ reflective essays: (1) “awareness of the rules, and the attempt to apply them, might have interfered with the students’ ability and motivation to generate more argumentrelevant statements, resulting in negative transfer” (p. 467), and (2) students’ past experiences with school-like argumentation may have led to interference with learning new principles that were included in the collaborative reasoning discussions plus lessons on argument structures and the principles’ treatment condition. In our judgment, within their argumentative schema theory, Reznitskaya et al.’s analysis makes sense. However, we think that their explanation would have benefited from a social practice theory of argumentation to explain why “transfer turned out to be a more elusive phenomenon” (Reznitskaya et al., 2007, p. 469). Perhaps, for example, differences in classroom contexts and the literacy practices in which the students had engaged, that is, rehearsed prior to the study, resulted in more or less transfer of collaborative reasoning within and across the three conditions. Only long-term observational studies and in-depth consideration of literacy practices within classrooms would clarify the ambiguous results for the quasi-experimental study. In the following sections, after describing how transfer is conceptualized and studied in the social practices perspective, we consider how cognitive and social notions of transfer both differ and complement one another in the study of argumentative reading and writing.

Transfer Within a Social Perspective A social perspective shifts the focus to the nature and quality of the sociocultural context itself as mediated by uses of oral, analysis, genre, discourse, visual, and digital literacy tools designed to achieve certain rhetorical goals. The social perspective draws on social literacy (Street, 1995) and situated cognition (Gee, 2004; Lave & Wenger, 1991) learning theories to focus on how learners acquire social practices through interaction in events and activities. In contrast to much experimental research in which the researcher constructs instructional, rhetorical contexts according to a study design with assigned tasks and audiences, researchers adopting a social practice position employ qualitative and ethnographic research methods to examine contexts as constructed by teachers and students (Lillis, 2008). As described previously, research on transfer within the cognitive perspective often focuses on transfer of knowledge or schemata across tasks with an emphasis


279

on individual psychological processes such as representational generalization, analogy, and the derivation of schemata (Dansereau, 1995; Pressley, 1995). “Individual agency is assumed to have little to do with the creation of social contexts supporting transfer, just as changes in contexts are presumed to have little to do with how individuals learn and develop across them” (K. Beach, 1999, pp. 102–103). More recently, however, transfer has been defined in terms of not only knowledge or schemata but also social practices and tools across events or contexts (Iran-Nejad & Pearson, 1999) that may foster learning. As Marini and Genereux (1995) noted, at one time or another the importance of each basic element of transfer—task, learner, and context—has been emphasized by educational theorists. Given that each element plays a key role in the transfer process, taking all three into account when designing instruction is most advisable. A trend in this direction, toward a more wholistic approach to achieving transfer, is apparent. (p. 5)

Researchers analyzing transfer of tool use across events or contexts focus on variation in uses of social practices and tools in different events or contexts. For example, Dyson’s (1995, 2008) ethnographic studies of students’ writing demonstrated that students in different classrooms learn to write in different ways, and students in the same classrooms learn different strategies and prefer different genres. She used the metaphor of a “sea of voices” to explain how and why this happens: The appropriation of words and the deliberate decision to use them or not in particular ways involves decisions about being itself, about who the authors want to be as they orient themselves among others in a sea of voices. Becoming aware of how textual options [and practices] link to social and ideological alternatives is dependent on interaction with others positioned differently in the sea. (Dyson, 2000, pp. 59–60)

Researchers are also particularly interested in how learners engage in recontextualization (Bernstein, 1996; Dyson, 1999; van Leeuwen, 2008) or relocalization (Pennycook, 2010), that is, how learners recontextualize or relocalize the uses of social practices as well as expectations and assumptions about the topic and about what counts as an effective argument when operating in a new or novel local event. However, small-scale studies with small numbers of students raise questions: Are the descriptions in a qualitative analysis a meaningful description of what could happen across other instructional events? Does the effectiveness of, say, instructional scaffolding for argumentative writing and reading that is revealed in one study differ in its effects on other groups of students?

280

Interaction of the Two Perspectives in the Study of Transfer Each of these two research perspectives, the cognitive and the social, carries with it certain assumptions about research methods for studying learning and transfer of argument, and each has clear implications for curriculum and instruction. Using empirical studies of the teaching and learning of argumentative writing conducted in grades K–12 and college writing classrooms, we delineate the assumptions that drive the two perspectives and their instructional consequences, arguing that researchers and teachers need an articulated understanding of their assumptions about knowledge and transfer to establish a clear and coherent relationship between theory and practice. We do not perceive these as necessarily contradictory perspectives, but rather as complementary perspectives that can each contribute to understanding the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing. Cognitive processes are always part of how people act and react to each other socially, including when they discuss issues and debate ideas important to them. Although we distinguish the cognitive from the social in our review of studies of argumentative reading and writing, we also recognize that during classroom discussions, teachers and students assume that cognitive processes are involved in composing and understanding texts as well as in making sense of the discussion. Through classroom discussion, processes such as collaborative reasoning and inferential thinking are made public (Bloome et al., 2009; Kucan & Beck, 2003) and perhaps transferable to new contexts and tasks. A recent study by Jadallah and colleagues (2011) suggested a research agenda for the study of argumentative reading and writing from an interactive perspective. In their study of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during collaborative reasoning, they looked simultaneously at the reasoning moves that students appropriated and the interactional context that the teacher and students coconstructed to make effective collaborative reasoning possible, concluding that collaborative reasoning appears to provide a social context in which children are able to repeatedly and spontaneously of [sic] use tools for thinking and appropriate new tools from one another and from their teacher. As children improve in argumentation, they reach a level of independence and consciousness in using these tools. (p. 227)

Note that Jadallah et al. (2001) were able to make this claim by warranting their conclusions using theoretical framing focused on cognitive processes and social practices: Rogoff’s (1995/2008) notion of students’ appropriation of understanding via social practices when they take part in joint activities with their parents or other


adults, and Chinn’s (2006) notion of the microgenetic method that allows researchers to examine change both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Research on Argumentative Reading and Writing Within a Cognitive Perspective Much, but not all, of the research on argumentative reading and writing within a cognitive perspective employs experimental and quasi-experimental designs to examine the effects of instruction in uses of various strategies or schemata on the quality of argumentative writing (Felton & Kuhn, 2001), a focus that builds on previous cognitive processing models of composing formulated in the 1970s and 1980s (Haas & Flower, 1988; Hayes & Flower, 1980).

Studies of Goal Formulation in Argumentative Reading and Writing One key focus in this research is students’ ability to formulate goals related to claims and formulate goals related to intended effects on audiences, particularly the effects of variations in specificity on the quality of posttest argumentative essays. Based on the assumption that having students consider audience goals would enhance recognition of counterarguments and direct references to audiences, Sexton, Harris, and Graham (1998) assigned fifth- and eighth-grade students to three different treatment conditions defined by different goals—a general goal, a goal involving improving content, and a combination of goals for content and audience—for argumentative writing on the topic. Students in the third treatment condition, goals for content and audience, were more likely to entertain and refute opposing positions than students in the other two groups; students in both the audience and the content groups wrote essays judged to be more persuasive than did students in the general goal groups; eighth graders’ essays were judged to be more persuasive than were those of the fifth graders. Researchers have also examined the effects of variation in the elaboration of assigned goals in writing assignments based on the assumption that more elaborated goals provide students with more specific scaffolding about purpose and audience for formulating their arguments. In one study, students given more elaborated goals for their writing generated higher quality persuasive essays than students who were given nonelaborated goals (Nussbaum & Kardash, 2005). Similarly, fourth- and sixth-grade students who were assigned to write argumentative essays with more elaborated, specific goals based on the need to provide

supporting reasons and formulate counterarguments generated higher quality essays than did students assigned to write using more generic goals (Ferretti, MacArthur, & Dowdy, 2000). In another study, seventh and eighth graders in an experimental condition were given goals to (a) produce reasons supporting their essays’ premises, (b) produce refutations of alternative standpoints, or (c) produce both, whereas students in a control group were not given any specific goals (Page-Voth & Graham, 1999). Further, half of the students in the experimental group received instruction on formulating arguments, whereas the other half received no instruction. Students who received the goal instruction generated higher quality argumentative essays than did students in the control condition; there was no difference in essay quality for students who received instruction versus those who did not. Similarly, when fifth and eighth graders were assigned to one of three conditions—a general goal, a content goal, and an audience goal group—students in both the content and audience goal groups were more likely to revise their argumentative writing, leading to higher quality writing; students who received audience awareness goals were more likely to consider opposing perspectives (Midgette, Haria, & MacArthur, 2008). Although these studies indicate that the specificity of goal formulation influences students’ argumentative writing by providing clarity of purpose, other research indicates that there are other factors influencing students’ writing. For instance, whereas writing in the elaborated goal condition resulted in higher quality essays for both fourth and sixth graders and for learning disabled students versus non–learning disabled, students in the elaborated goal condition did not employ detailed formulation of alternative arguments to refute those arguments, possibly because they did not want to lend credence to those alternative arguments (Ferretti, Andrews-Weckerly, & Lewis 2007). Their analysis revealed that 70% of the variance in the quality of the students’ essays could be attributed to the use of specific elements of argument, as opposed to demographic factors of grade level (i.e., fourth vs. sixth) and disability (learning disabled vs. non–learning disabled). Students most frequently employed arguments based on cost–benefit analysis of the consequences of adopting a certain policy, whereas argument from an example, slippery slope, and verbal classification were more infrequently employed. However, the students’ arguments were still perceived to be relatively undeveloped, suggesting the need for strategy instruction in acquiring related background knowledge designed to bolster the quality of supporting reasons (Ferretti et al., 2007; Graham, 2006).


281

Integrating Reading and Writing Argument Instruction A primary focus of cognitive task research is how instruction in reading of argumentative texts transfers to writing those texts (Bergmann & Zepernick, 2007; Wardle, 2007). Researchers have examined the relationship between students’ reading ability in interpreting and writing texts (Gárate, Melero, Tejerina, Echevarría, & Gutiérrez, 2007; Parodi, 2007; Sadoski & Paivio, 2001), as well as how writing argumentative texts transfers back to reading those texts (Wiley & Voss, 1999). In a large-scale study, eighth graders were assigned to write an essay based on a specific purpose, text type, topic, audience, and register, as well as to answer nine openended questions in response to argumentative texts (Parodi, 2007). The results indicated significant overall correlation (0.72) between microstructural (0.57), macrostructural (0.68), and superstructural (0.79) psycholinguistic processing for comprehension and production of argumentative texts. As readers and writers, students were better able to comprehend and produce texts in terms of local coherence, but less able to interpret or compose argumentative structures because of eighth graders’ memory challenges or inferring or employing macrostructural links based on recognition of the overall structure. In a study of the effects of reading instruction on argumentative writing, 11- and 12-year-old students were assigned to one of four groups: a group that received process-oriented writing instruction, a group that received process-oriented writing instruction plus reading analysis of pro/con texts, a group that received the same reading analysis but no writing instruction, and a control group (Crowhurst, 1990). Analysis of the posttest argumentative essays found that the students in the writing instruction and writing/reading instruction groups did significantly better than students in the reading analysis and control groups, suggesting the value of integrating reading and writing instruction.

Argumentative Reader Schema In a study of reading–writing relationships, Voss (2005) examined how students acquire from reading argumentative schemata for composing claims, reasons, warrants, and counterarguments in their writing. For example, in analyzing claims, readers and writers may apply schema expectations of theme (topic/subject), side (pro/con), and predicate (position) of a claim (Britt, Kurby, Dandotkar, & Wolfe, 2008). When readers respond negatively to a claim, they then use these schemata to search for examples of relevant familiar arguments (e.g., that women should have the right to make their own choices on abortion), or they may generate their own counterarguments. As writers, they then

282

use these schemata to structure their essays, suggesting evidence of transfer from reading to writing. For example, instruction in identifying features of argumentative texts helped 12th-grade students identify textual cues to identify the argument structure, claim–evidence relationships, and formulation of the argument (Chambliss, 1995). This focus on reader schemata leads to issues of how prior knowledge of schemata or content as well as attitudes influence reading and writing of argumentative essays. For example, readers and writers may adopt a myside bias against information that supports opposing arguments, leading writers to fail to include counterarguments in formulating their own positions (Wolfe & Britt, 2008). Research on the influence of myside bias on writing quality found that college students who were more likely to apply schemata for recognition and rebuttal of supporting evidence generated higher quality essays and more favorable perceptions of the writer than did students who did not include opposition evidence; tutorials focusing on use of argumentative schemata improved their formulation of claims and reasons and reduced myside bias (Wolfe et al., 2009). It is also the case that the degree to which readers will change their beliefs is a function of the degree to which texts contain refutations, their level of interest and comprehensibility, and the degree to which they recognize how their own biases influence their analysis of supporting data (Chambliss & Garner, 1996). Students may also benefit from instruction involving analysis of the wording of claims, for example, analyzing how claim predicates are worded to assess claim–reason arguments. When asked to rate their agreement with arguments such as “recycling should be federally mandated because it helps protect the environment,” and “recycling is cost-effective because it helps protect the environment” (p. 61), and then recall these claims, 76% of undergraduate participants accurately recalled the predicate of the claim but were more accurate in recalling the gist or theme of the claim (Britt et al., 2008). The ability to recall these predicates is important in that while the reason given in these two claims, “because it helps protect the environment,” supports the first claim, students need to unpack the assumptions about the relationship between cost-effectiveness and protecting the environment for the second claim, “recycling is cost-effective because it helps protect the environment,” requiring their awareness of the need to interrogate that warrants supporting claim–reason relationships. Taken as whole, these findings suggest the need for reading instruction in unpacking assumptions or warrants underlying claim–reason relationships. In a series of three studies, Larson, Britt, and Kurby (2009) examined the use of tutorial instruction


involving analysis of flawed versus nonflawed claims on college and high school students’ comprehension of predicates in claim–reason relationships. In their first study, Larson and colleagues examined the use of a paper-and-pencil tutorial for college students’ analysis of “acceptable” claims (e.g., “banks shouldn’t charge ATM fees because the fees make many customers unhappy”), “unwarranted” claims (e.g., “banks shouldn’t charge ATM fees because banks are financial institutions”), and “unsupported” claims (e.g., “banks shouldn’t charge ATM fees”; p. 348). Although only 61% of the college students were initially accurate on checking for a reason, after taking the tutorial, 80% were able to do so, but they did not improve in their ability to reject unwarranted arguments. In the second experiment, college students completed a computer tutorial that provided feedback during the tutorial on their analysis of unwarranted/ unsupported versus acceptable claims. Analysis of the recall accuracy indicated that students who received the feedback were more accurate than students who did not, suggesting the importance of providing feedback. For the third study, the tutorial was converted to a Web-based tutorial and administered to 50 advanced placement high school students enrolled in courses involving critical reading and writing. Initially, 70% of the students could accurately analyze claims; an additional 10% improved after completing the tutorial. This research suggests that given students’ difficulty in critiquing argument claims, in order to write argumentative essays, they need feedback as well as instruction in distinguishing structurally acceptable arguments from unacceptable arguments in texts they are reading. Students’ writing of argumentative texts is also inf luenced by prior reading of certain types of arguments in preparation for writing. In assessing the validity of arguments in text A, students may rely on their prior knowledge, which could be biased and unreliable, or they could read texts B and C, which provide counterarguments to text A (Kobayashi, 2010). This requires not only that students have access to and/or are willing to seek out other texts that provide alternative arguments, but also that they then are able to contrast the positions in these texts, something they have difficulty doing (Kobayashi, 2009). When college students read two different texts on four different issues in different orders, reading texts with pro or con arguments first, most students described the competing arguments in their essays (Kobayashi, 2010). This suggests that students can draw on competing arguments in their writing, assuming that they have access to competing perspectives, which they can often access online.

Effects of Collaborative Reasoning Discussions on Argumentative Reading and Writing One significant line of research related to the integration of reading, writing, and discussing focuses on collaborative reasoning discussions designed to help students acquire and adopt argument strategies for transfer to reading and writing (Reznitskaya et al., 2007, 2009). Richard Anderson and colleagues (2001) examined the extent to which uses of cognitive and interactional processes involved in collaborative reasoning discussions influenced reasoning and rhetorical strategies. After analyzing over 14,000 lines of transcribed discussions from small-group discussions in fourthgrade classrooms, the researchers confirmed their notion of a snowball phenomenon, in which students appropriated a variety of argument stratagems from their peers and, over time, used the strategies with increasing frequency. By tracking the uses of strategies over time in discussions, the researchers found that different students, as opposed to just the same students, were increasingly employing these strategies, indicating that the students were acquiring use of argumentative schemata (Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2002). In an experimental study, fifth graders engaged in collaborative reasoning in small groups over a five-week period on issues portrayed in stories in which, fostered by teacher coaching, students challenged each others’ claims and formulated counterarguments (Reznitskaya et al., 2001). Analysis of posttest argumentative essays found that participation in the collaborative reasoning resulted in a significantly higher number of arguments and rebuttals as well as references to the stories than were found in essays written by students in the control group. In a more recent study, Dong, Anderson, Kim, and Li (2008) examined collaborative reasoning in a non-Western setting to question the assumption “that children’s history of language socialization influences the success they might achieve with a previously unfamiliar discourse practice” (p. 401). Studies conducted at two sites in China and one in Korea found that the students readily acquired use of and were engaged in collaborative reasoning in a manner similar to results from studies of U.S. students. After counting occurrences of arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals in the students’ reflective essays, Dong et. al. argued that the “ways of thinking acquired during oral discussion [collaborative reasoning] were internalized and transferred to written argument” (p. 421). What is not clear from their frequency counts of arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals is the extent to which readers would find the essays more or less well argued (i.e., the ability to orchestrate the components of a complex argument) across the experimental conditions. This


283

point raises issues regarding the construct validity of researchers’ writing measures (Camp, 1993). A somewhat similar study considered whether successful participation in oral collaboration transfers to successful written argumentation. A comparison of students in a condition that combined cooperative learning with question asking versus a condition with just cooperative learning found that students in the cooperative plus questioning condition employed more elaborations, reasons, and justifications for their responses in their discussions than did their peers in the cooperative condition (Gillies & Khan, 2009). However, these oral collaboration practices did not transfer to the students’ writing when they wrote without collaborative support. This suggests the need to consider the use of more collaborative writing activities, something that we discuss in more detail in terms of online argumentative writing.

Use of Outlines or Templates as Scaffolds Students also benefit from outlines or templates scaffolding the development of arguments and counterarguments, including learning to analyze different argumentative strategies in texts. Students benefit from being able to metacognitively identify and reflect on their use of argumentative strategies to determine the effectiveness of those strategies. One study comparing a group of students who labeled their argument strategies as arguments, challenges, supporting evidence, and explanations versus a group who did not label argument strategies found that the former group was more likely to formulate challenges than the latter group (C. Brooks & Jeong, 2006). Nussbaum and Kardash (2005) conducted two experiments in which they provided directions to collegeage students for three different kinds of essays. In the first experiment, the researchers varied three treatments in terms of the directions they provided: (1) a control condition (“please write an essay expressing your opinion”), (2) a reason condition (“please write an essay expressing your opinion. Provide as many reasons as you can to justify your position, and try to provide evidence that supports your reasons”), and (3) a counterargument condition (“provide evidence that supports your reasons. Then discuss two or three reasons why others might disagree with you, and why those reasons are wrong”; p. 159). As expected, Nussbaum and Kardash found that persuasion instructions reduced the number of counterarguments generated by students: The students believed that identifying counterarguments would make their own arguments less persuasive. In the second experiment, however, the researchers provided a text that outlined numerous arguments on both sides of the issue, and the contrasting text counteracted the negative effects of persuasion instructions. Results indicated that having a text with the different types of

284

arguments and counterarguments served to increase the quality of the counterarguments. Thus, providing students with specific goal instructions and requiring them to read a text before writing their essays increased their consideration of counterarguments. In a related experimental study, Nussbaum and Schraw (2007) gave college students instruction in criteria for assessing arguments or instruction in the use of a graphic organizer that mapped thesis–support relationships. Students who received the criteria instruction for what constitutes an effective argument were better able to integrate their arguments and counterarguments in terms of formulating rebuttals, whereas the students who received the graphic organizer instruction showed more refutations of counterarguments. The use of the graphic organizer seemed to have encouraged use of an adversarial refutation stance focusing on opposition positions. Another experimental study examined the use of argumentation vee diagrams (AVDs) to foster argument–counterargument integration based on a visual depiction using a V to scaffold arguments, with pro arguments on the left side of the V, counterarguments on the right side, and potential conclusions at the bottom (Nussbaum & Schraw, 2007). A comparison of use of the AVD by college students found that those using it were more likely to generate compromise positions and change their positions than were students who did not use it. Analysis of the use of a prewriting AVD found that use of it resulted in significantly greater use of argument–counterargument integration than for students who did not employ the AVD. This study also identified a strategy of minimization involved in argument–counterargument integration, that is, the ability to curtail or minimize the significance or extensiveness of a problem or issue. In another experimental study, students analyzed public policy problems portrayed only as text, as a causal diagram, or through use of diagramming tools for constructing their own diagram (Easterday, Aleven, & Scheines, 2007). Based on students’ analyses of a textual argument, students who engaged in use of the causal diagram were better able to organize their perceptions of the arguments than were students in the text-only treatment. Students using the diagramming tool learned more about constructing causal arguments than students with the text or causal diagrams, because the students with the tool were actively engaged in using it to construct their arguments. A rather consistent pattern in these studies is the significant role played by counterarguments in fostering students’ reflective consideration of positions that they had assumed were correct. However, they also benefited from strategic use of scaffolds to manage the complexities of weighing arguments against counterarguments.


Computer-Scaffolding Tools Researchers have also examined the use of computerscaffolding graphic organizer, mind-mapping, or script prompt tools that serve to scaffold and/or visually organize arguments (Andriessen et al., 2003; Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2008; Kirschner, Shum, & Carr, 2003; Pinkwart & McLaren, in press; Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, 2007; for an extensive review of research on use of these tools, see Scheuer, Loll, Pinkwart, & McLaren, 2010). For example, use of computer graphics scaffolding designed to assist middle school students in formulating evidence for problem– solution relationships had significant positive effects on the students’ argumentation (Belland, 2010). When college students were provided with maps versus a text version of an argument, the students who employed the maps were better able to recall the different aspects of an argument than were the students who employed the text version, although there was no difference in comprehension (Dwyer, Hogan, & Stewart, 2010). Analysis of the use of computer-assisted argument mapping at the college level indicated that the use of this mapping provided students with useful support for formulating arguments in a range of different disciplines (Davies, 2009). Graphic organizers can also serve to organize online argumentative discussions by helping students visually document and portray their arguments to assist in formulating those arguments collaboratively (Dowell, Tscholl, Gladisch, & Asgari-Targhi, 2009). One advantage of diagrams is that they allow peers to generate shared perceptions of the nonlinear, intertextual relationships between different aspects of an argument (Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003; van Amelsvoort, Andriessen, & Kanselaar, 2008). For example, fifth graders generated more developed arguments when they collaboratively employed an argument diagram than when they collaboratively listed pro–con positions (Schwarz, Neuman, & Biezuner, 2000). In another study, 16 secondary school students working in online chat pairs adopting pro–con positions on vivisection and gender equality either employed their own argument diagrams to capture discussions or employed computer diagrams that automatically constructed discussions (Salminen, Marttunen, & Laurinen, 2010). Analysis of these diagrams indicated that although these two different diagrams did not differ in terms of formulating arguments, the studentconstructed diagrams included more of the students’ prior knowledge on the issue than did the computergenerated diagrams. In an earlier study, analysis of changes in diagrams from before to after students’ reading of articles and participation in collaborative chat debates indicated that the collaboration fostered further recall and elaboration of arguments, as evident

in changes in their diagrams (Laurinen & Marttunen, 2007). Students also drew on their prior knowledge of the issue evoked through the collaboration to make modifications in their diagrams, suggesting the importance of collaboration as fostering transformation of knowledge on an issue. A related study compared the effects of participation in an asynchronous online argument (control) versus participation plus the use of a graph notation tool using nodes and arrows, in which students could add chat boxes for identifying connections between arguments versus use of the graph notion tool and another threaded discussion tool that allowed students to click on the graph material as they were writing their own material (Suthers, Vatrapu, Medina, Joseph, & Dwyer, 2008). Students in the latter two conditions were more likely to formulate their positions earlier in the process and elaborate on those positions than were students in the discussion-only condition. Researchers have also examined the use of online argument systems, such as InterLoc, AcademicTalk, Araucaria, Carneades, Argunaut Knowledge Forum, Truthmapping, Athena, Theseus, Digalo, Rationale, and Convince Me, designed to foster and scaffold use of productive collaborative argumentation (Andriessen, 2006; Scheuer et al., 2010; Stegmann et al., 2007). For example, building on Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1994) notions of scaffolding knowledge construction, InterLoc (www.interloc.org.uk/) provides students with a selection of sentence starters (e.g., “I think…,” “Let me explain…,” “I disagree because…,” “Is there another way of looking at it…”) that prompt formulation of arguments. These online argument systems can also foster interactivity with both immediate and worldwide audiences who provide alternative perspectives on issues (Wiley & Bailey, 2006). For example, the Araucaria and Carneades systems visually display relationships between propositions, reasons, and premises, leading students to examine how certain premises may or may not lead to certain conclusions (Walton, 2011). Systems such as Araucaria can be applied for use of specific types of arguments or argumentation schemes, for example, argument from witness testimony, expert opinion, popular opinion, example, analogy, practical reasoning (i.e., from goal to action), verbal classification, and sign (Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008). A na lysis of a n ea rly ver sion of InterL oc, AcademicTalk, found that college students using this tool more directly engaged with and challenged others’ positions; the students also generated more extended argumentation than did students engaged in an online forum without use of this tool (McAlister, Ravenscroft, & Scanlon, 2004). Research on implementation of the tool with over 350 users at five different college sites found that students and teachers judged it as fostering


285

substantive collaborative argument (McAlister et al., 2004). Although most of these systems are more appropriate for college students, some research has suggested that they can be used with secondary students. In a descriptive study, teachers organized online discussions for ninth graders around narrative cases that represent poorly structured or wicked problems about which students have some investment and knowledge and for which there are alternative solutions (Schwarz & De Groot, 2007). The students also used the Digalo argument system tool that includes mapping and synchronous forums with and without f loor controls to organize turn-taking, in which students request the floor to add contributions. Analysis of the changes in pre and postargumentative essays found significant improvement in openness, defined by decisiveness and the number of perspectives adopted. The researchers noted that one reason for the shift in perspectives was related to being exposed to multiple perspectives. In a related study of the effects of Digalo on argument, analysis of the effects of different conditions resulted in differences in floor control on seventh graders arguing in small groups on the issue of wearing school uniforms (Schwarz & Glassner, 2007). The results indicated that organizing online discussions through controlled turntaking and use of natural conversations resulted in the development of more relevant claims and arguments than was the case with lack of floor control and more formal conversations. Although the use of maps or graphic organizers may serve to effectively scaffold students’ representations of aspects of arguments and use of argumentative strategies, maps and graphic organizers may not necessarily enhance critical understanding of complex issues (Scheuer et al., 2010). Moreover, as with any technology tool, the purposes for which students are using maps or graphic organizers based on certain classroom activities or instructions can result in differences in learning. In a study of use of an argumentation diagram in paired online arguments, 15- and 16-year-old students engaged in online dyad arguments were assigned to one of two conditions related to how they used their diagrams (Lund, Molinari, Séjourné, & Baker, 2007). Students in the graph for debating condition simply referred to their own graphs to support their arguments, leading up to having each dyad determine areas of agreement and disagreement. In the graph for representing chat debate condition, students engaged in dyad arguments followed by using the diagram to represent their arguments, leading up to determining areas of agreement and disagreement. Students in the graph for debating condition were more likely to identify conf licting opinions associated with the different arguments than were students in the graph for representing

286

chat debate condition. Students in this condition added more material that was not directly related to the primary arguments, which suggests that using graphs simply to represent arguments does not encourage students to adopt and recognize conflicting opinions associated with an argument, whereas simply representing the different arguments represents more portrayal of group consensus than conflicting opinions. All of this points to the importance of defining specific purposes for using mapping or graphing tools to foster representations of arguments. This research on the use of diagrams, maps, graphic organizers, and online argument systems for scaffolding reading and writing of arguments suggests the importance of acquired schemata for identifying and development of claim–reason–warrant relationships. A key remaining research question has to do with how use of these diagrams transfers across disparate topics and types of texts.

Strengths and Limitations of a Cognitive Perspective Application of a cognitive perspective has effectively identified how use of specific strategies or schemata is associated with different degrees of effectiveness in reading and writing argumentative texts. Instructional research in uses of specific strategies or schemata has documented ways in which teaching certain argumentative strategies, particularly in terms of formulating specific rhetorical goals shaping their argumentative reading. Further, research on reading argumentative texts related to writing argumentative texts points to the value of instruction in text structures related to improving argument writing, suggesting the need for integration of reading/writing instruction. Cognitive studies of reading and writing have also provided what Hayes (2006) referred to as complex frameworks, that is, representations designed to explore complex processes or situations. He delineated five ways that frameworks might be applied to research issues: to aid memory of key elements and relations within complex systems (e.g., process model of writing, Toulmin’s argument model), to provide a common language, to facilitate acquiring and organizing knowledge, to make empirical predictions, and to construct a research program. We think that a research program for the study of the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing might benefit from such explanatory structures. Perhaps the most significant contribution of this perspective is the identification of specific cognitive skills necessary for argumentation. As Kuhn (2005) posited, “we need to know fairly precisely what a cognitive skill is if we hope to teach it or create the conditions for its development” (p. 12). Without the theoretical and


empirical work within the cognitive perspective, literacy researchers and teachers would not have “roadmaps” for the “patterns, sequences, and endpoints” that are valued elements of intellectual life (Kuhn, 2005, p. 196). This orientation toward the study of what argumentative skills are and how they develop offers a much needed extension to the myriad of professional materials and public policy statements that call for teaching and learning thinking and reasoning skills without specifying what these skills are, how they are learned, and how to improve instruction. However, there are a number of limitations to the application of the cognitive perspective. One limitation, as articulated by writing researchers in the 1980s (R. Beach & Bridwell, 1984), is that this perspective underrepresents the social and cultural contexts constituting the reading and writing of argumentative texts (Evensen, 2002; Nystrand, 2006). The cognitive perspective fails to consider how students’ knowledge of social, rhetorical, and power dynamics operating in a certain social context can influence the quality or effectiveness of formulating arguments through social construction of persona or ethos, gaining audience identification (Burke, 1969), or voicing of certain discourses, practices constituting particular social contexts (Moje & Lewis, 2007). For instance, in a replication of a previous study of college students’ comprehension processes of argumentative texts (Haas & Flower, 1988), Haswell and colleagues (1999) found that providing students with an argumentative text with which they were engaged and interested resulted in stronger comprehension of the text than was the case in the original study. This finding led the researchers to argue for the importance of social context shaping argumentative practices (Haswell et al., 1999). Although much of this research employed controlled experimental designs that allowed for analysis of and generalizations regarding different factors shaping argumentative reading and writing (Calfee & Chambliss, 2011), this use of experimental studies raises issues of ecological validity in that they may create artificial rhetorical contexts inconsistent with the complexity of social contexts involved in reading and writing. Another limitation of much cognitive processing research is that it has focused primarily on comprehending or producing texts as opposed to the effects of framing the argument in terms of dialogic or collaborative interaction involving the use of texts to achieve social action in an authentic rhetorical context involving actual consequences for writers based on audience feedback. Perhaps most significant is that the cognitive perspective does not account for how differences in sociocultural contexts result in different notions of valued argumentative practices. For example, Diane Anderson (2008) found that the letters written by urban students to their principal regarding school improvements

were more persuasively powerful than those written by suburban students, which she attributed to differences in habitus constituted by class and race differences. Anderson also analyzed the letters for degrees of centeredness, that is, the degree to which the writer is self-centered or audience-centered, reflecting class differences and discourses operating in the two different social contexts. In the next section, we examine argumentative reading and writing from a social perspective.

Research on Argumentative Reading and Writing Within a Social Perspective Argument as a social practice constitutes the exploration and advancement of knowledge: An idea is put forth, a dispute ensues, a new hypothesis is offered, and then scholars, students, and others consider an old problem from a new perspective. Argument is also about discovery and clarity as well as persuasion, occurring in what Bereiter and Scardamalia (2006) called design mode, as distinct from belief mode. Whereas discourse in belief mode is ultimately concerned with accepting or rejecting an idea, discourse in design mode is concerned with developing ideas into theories, inventions, plans, and so forth, designed to formulate solutions to problems. Whereas justifiability is the key criterion in belief mode, promisingness—the degree to which theories, inventions, plans, and so forth have some potentiality in terms of uptake—is the pivotal issue in design mode. Much formal education is conducted in belief mode (e.g., arguments about competing beliefs for the sake of engaging in arguments), although the way belief is dealt with may range from authoritative declaration to critical analysis. However, in the work world, design mode predominates, given the need to use discourse to address practical problems leading to tangible solutions or outcomes. Well-argued ideas in speeches, essays, articles, and position papers bring significance and understanding to an issue for the purpose of solving problems. Argument and debate also bring people and their ideas into contact with one another to make sense of new ideas and experiences collaboratively as well as in disagreement. Put another way, people continually argue about sports, politics, religion, travel routes to work, and other aspects of daily life. In business, people argue over fees, wages, and proposals for conducting work and job specifications. In law, people argue over legal interpretations and the constitutionality of a law. In academic research, scholars argue over hypotheses, theses, and evidence. Of course, there are many other places and institutions in which arguing occurs. Within social settings and social institutions, there are a variety of social practices for


287

engaging in arguing, with distinctive ground rules for success or failure; for instance, the social practices for arguing about a nation’s soccer team’s chances to win the World Cup among patrons in a sports bar are different from the social practices for arguing about whether a particular genotype is associated with a particular phenotype in zebra fish. Given this variation in contexts, adopting a social practice view of argumentative reading and writing therefore differs from what has been a primary focus of much previous research on the components of an argument (e.g., McCann, 1989), the text structures and stratagems (e.g., Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2002; Yeh, 1998), and the cognitive processes involved in arguing and learning to argue (e.g., Kuhn, 1991, 2005). Much, although not all, of the scholarship on argumentative reading and writing has treated argumentation as if there were a relatively consistent set of cognitive and linguistic skills and processes that define an effective argument regardless of variation in contexts. Although there has been recognition that there may be different ways of engaging in argument (Berrill, 1996; van Eemeren et al., 2002), different ways of teaching argumentative writing (Andrews, 2010; Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2007; Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984), and different kinds of argument text schemes (Walton et al., 2008), to date there has been little attention to viewing argumentative reading and writing as a set of social practices that vary across and within social institutions and social settings consistent with literacy practice (Barton, 2007; Street, 1995) or situated learning theories (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As social practices, argumentative reading and writing are not viewed as solely or necessarily about winning an argument with warrants and evidence. That is, argument is not necessarily just about reasoning and rhetoric. Rather, as social practices, argumentative reading and writing are about building social relationships and connections to social institutions based on adopting certain cultural ideologies or discourses. Such practices are held not only in the minds of a group of people but are also in the material structure, space, and organization of a particular literacy event (cf. Bloome et al., 2005; Pennycook, 2010). For example, arguments about whether Spain has a better soccer team in the World Cup than Brazil among patrons at a sports bar can involve claims, warrants, and evidence, but the point of the argument is not simply in winning but in the engagement and excitement that comes from the solidarity of recognizing great soccer teams. Arguing at an academic conference is in some ways no different: The structuring of turn-taking in the argumentation is more formal (e.g., paper presentation followed by discussants and questions), and the emphasis on convincing warrants cannot be taken for granted, as

288

is often the case in sports talk. Yet, the social practices of argumentative reading and writing in academic settings are also about social relationships (i.e., scholars to each other, scholars to the rest of the world), social institutions (i.e., higher education, academic research), and cultural ideologies (e.g., what counts as knowledge, what is valued, what counts as reason). In both informal settings such as sports bars and more formal academic settings, understanding the appropriate social practices for engaging in an argument is important, because those who do not follow the appropriate practice may be viewed as outsiders and become marginalized. Adopting a social practices perspective shifts a researcher’s analytic focus to examining how uses of language, texts, genres, persona/ethos, discourses, and images as tools in social contexts serve to achieve certain rhetorical goals. The social practices perspective adopts an ecological perspective on how these tools mediate unfolding, evolving construction of contexts. In their critique of traditional rhetorical models based on invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery, Prior and colleagues (2007) posited the need to add mediation (i.e., how digital, genre, and discourse practices shape text production), distribution (i.e., how texts are disseminated within and across certain groups or networks), and reception (i.e., how text meaning is constructed by writers and audiences within certain object-driven activities and ecologies). For Prior et al., arguments as mediated social action refers to the fact that action and cognition are distributed over time and space and among people, artifacts, and environments and, thus, also laminated as multiple frames or fields that coexist in any situated act. In activity, people are not only socialized (i.e., brought into alignment with others) as they appropriate cultural resources but also individuated as their particular appropriations historically accumulate to form a particular individual. Through appropriation and individuation, socialization also opens up a space for cultural change, for a personalization of the social (Prior et al., 2007). Given this redefinition of context, researchers then examine how students learn to transfer uses of literacy practices across different, often competing events or spaces to achieve positive reception and uptake. For example, when large numbers of Egyptians argued for the need for their head of state to resign, they were drawing on previously developed and similar arguments by the Tunisian people, arguments mediated by social networking tools for mass distribution of these arguments. This raises the question as to how these mediated social practices were acquired in ways that led to cultural change across different spaces. It is important to note that approaching argumentative reading and writing as social practices is not to deny the role of cognitive and linguistic processes involved


in argumentation. Rather, it is to ask, When people say that they are engaged in argumentative reading and writing, what is it that they are doing? How are they doing it? Who is involved? When? Where? How are their actions within an event related to other events and the social institution in which the event is embedded? Also, how is what they are doing a recurrent pattern of social interaction in such settings? We view such questions as important not only in their own right but also to studies of cognitive and linguistic processes and strategies, because these questions contextualize such cognitive and linguistic studies and cannot be taken for granted.

Theoretical Perspectives Shaping the Social Perspective on Research on Argumentative Reading and Writing Over the past 30 years, the limitations of a cognitive perspective led many researchers to focus on social and cultural aspects of contexts, shaping literacy research (Nystrand, 2006) and contemporary developments in argumentation theory (Berrill, 1996; van Eemeren et al., 1996; Walton, 1998), and studies of argumentative reading and writing (Chambliss, 1995; Nystrand & Graff, 2001) were certainly part of this shift. Analysis of the use of argument as social practices draws on several different theoretical perspectives: new rhetoric, social genre, dialogic/discourse analysis, and visual rhetoric. We consider these in turn.

New Rhetoric Theory and Audience Awareness Although classical rhetoric emphasized the need to win over or convince audiences of the validity of one’s claims by employing a range of rhetorical strategies, new rhetoric (Bazerman, 1994; Booth, 1963; Burke, 1969) focuses on writers’ social relationships with audiences constituted by shared beliefs or attitudes. For example, Burke described how writers attempt to gain their audience’s identification with their claims or cause through referencing shared beliefs, attitudes, or experiences to build a social relationship with that audience. Doing so requires writers to define their intended and actual audiences’ beliefs, attitudes, and experiences, something that can be developmentally challenging for younger students. One limitation of research on argumentative writing conducted within the cognitive perspective is that students in these studies often wrote for unknown or anonymous audiences so that they had no understanding of their audiences’ actual beliefs, attitudes, or experiences to gain the audiences’ identification. In a comparison of 9th-grade, 12th-grade, first-year college, and graduate students’ developmental differences in understanding audiences and the application of relevant

uses of strategies in argumentative writing in a role-play activity, Richard Beach and Anson (1988) argued that high school students were more likely to simply formulate their positions with little reference to audiences, whereas college students were, prior to stating their positions, more likely to initially attempt to reference traits or status that they shared with their audience to gain what Burke (1969) referred to as audience identification. Being aware of audience perspectives also means that students are more likely to consider potential counterarguments that could be voiced by their audiences. In a descriptive study of novices’ and expert writers’ uses of complex argument structures, secondary students were more likely to employ arguments as claims or reservations, whereas adult or expert writers were more likely to employ arguments as countered rebuttals as well as warrants reflecting an awareness of the rhetorical context (Crammond, 1998). Developmental stage models often underlying cognitive research on students’ argumentative writing often assume that younger students are developmentally incapable of considering audience perspectives, ignoring variations in contexts that serve to foster students’ audience awareness. Having definable audiences serves to create a sense of context that fosters rehearsal of inner speech arguments. As Ward (2009) noted, “audience provides context, which provides motivation, which stimulates inner speech, which stimulates writing development, which motivates contextualization” (p. 69). For example, analysis of first graders’ writing messages in a family message journal, writing to family members who responded to their messages, found that the students were able, with teacher prompting, to consider their audiences’ needs (Wollman-Bonilla, 2001), suggesting the value of instruction on audience awareness. Analysis of fourth graders’ Internet versus print writing for different audiences found that explicit instruction on uses of different textual features for different types of texts enhanced students’ audience awareness (Karchmer-Klein, 2007). Students are also more likely to consider their audience when asked to adopt a reading-as-the-reader perspective (Holliway, 2004). Finally, an experimental study of 10-year-olds found that sharing their perspectives with each other in groups of three to prepare for argumentative writing helped them acquire social perspective-taking that is essential for considering audience characteristics (Gélat, 2003). Research grounded in the new rhetoric has highlighted the importance of students’ perspective-taking involved in varying their use of language and voice in formulating arguments for different audiences in different contexts. To help bilingual sixth-grade students engage in audience analysis, students compared their own variations against adult translators’ variations in the use


289

of language and voice in translating across different audiences (Martínez, Orellana, Pacheco, & Carbone, 2008). Students then identified certain issues that concerned them, identified their audiences, and then rehearsed variations in voice given differences in these audiences, in preparation for writing letters to actual audiences. After completing drafts, students adopted the roles of their intended audiences and provided peer feedback in terms of the quality of arguments and ways to improve the arguments, for example, through the use of voice. Analysis of the students’ letters indicated that the students were able to shift their use of voice relative to differences in audience. For example, in writing to school administrators, one student, Christina, employed if–then conditional syntax to adopt a voice or ethos associated with making general causal claims about the school system, as well as a sense of administrators’ concerns with test scores: I’m sure if our school got more money for school supplies, students would concentrate more and get better test scores. If the District gave schools more money and supplies, the students would try to stay in school and pay attention and get better test scores. (Martínez et al., 2008, p. 427)

In contrast, when addressing a classmate, Christina adopted a more personal voice associated with her own personal behavior: “When I don’t eat in lunch or nutrition ’cause the food’s nasty, I don’t do my work and my homework” (p. 427). She also addressed her classmates in a more informal manner: “Don’t you think our school needs to change because it’s ugly and poor?” (p. 428). Taken as a whole, these studies grounded in the new rhetoric offer evidence that the degree to which students seriously consider their audience influences their motivation to formulate effective arguments (Miller & Charney, 2007; Sheehy, 2003; Ward, 2009). Students may also be more motivated to write for peers, particularly those in other classes, than for their teacher. In a comparative analysis of Israeli seventh graders writing for their teachers versus writing for U.S. peers, the writing for peers was superior to that of writing for their teachers in terms of more clearly connecting sentences around a main idea (Cohen & Riel, 1989). Students may also be more motivated when they can define their role or ethos in terms of the demands of having to change their audiences’ status quo beliefs, particularly when the students are engaged in collective activity (Spartz, 2010). Interviews with college students who were employing written arguments to foster change as part of a service learning course revealed that the students were motivated to construct an activist civic identity/ethos given their commitment to making change (Crisco, 2009).

290

Social Genre Theory Use of argument as social practice is also mediated by students’ knowledge and use of social genres, that is, social activity constituted as genre systems (Bazerman, 1994; Russell, 2009, 2010) that mediate participation in social worlds by providing certain prototypical ways of acting and being, with spaces constituting argument as social practice. Social genres therefore play a key role in fostering transfer across multiple contexts as a form of polycontextuality (Engeström, 2009). Genres of argumentative writing also serve to organize and standardize writing practices based on shared knowledge of genre conventions designed to achieve certain uptake. For example, Sheehy (2003) studied middle school students who wrote a composite letter to their school board to argue against closing their school. She examined two competing forces at work: centripetal, unifying forces of standardization versus centrifugal challenges to standardization based on competing, diverse perspectives. The standardization forces involved the teacher’s direct instruction of formalist models and genre conventions, and the students’ uses of those models and conventions to pull together competing, alternative ideas into a cohesive text. At the same time, students were entertaining a range of alternative perspectives, including the idea that the school board would simply ignore their plea, because as students, they had little agency in the community. To bolster their rhetorical agency, the students recast their exploratory, informal oral talk into more formal written prose consistent with written speech genre conventions. As the students worked, the teacher encouraged them to entertain alternative, diverse perspectives: the centrifugal force leading to revision, as well as genre tools leading the students to organize and focus their ideas for their final speech as consistent with their perceptions of board members’ knowledge and needs. The students’ collaborative formulation of their argument to not close their school was mediated by their shared knowledge of social genres of argument. Further research needs to examine how knowledge of specific genre functions to organize collaborative argumentative writing based on shared perceptions of social practices.

Dialogic/Discourse Analysis Theory Another theoretical perspective informing analysis of argument as social practices is dialogic theory related to double-voicing different discourses or worldviews as a tool for building social relationships with audiences (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986). Gaining audience identification for one’s position or cause involves the ability to doublevoice language or discourses in ways that speak to those audiences. Perhaps the most well-known example of argumentation via double-voicing is Martin Luther King Jr.’s call for social justice in his “I Have a Dream”


speech using dream metaphors, elements of the U.S. Constitution, and biblical references. Student can adopt argumentative stances through double-voicing language through parodies or what Karen Brooks (2011) defined as the reaccenting of digital and popular culture texts. Uses of dialogic double-voicing as a social practice for building social, intertextual relationships with audiences (Bakhtin, 1981; Bloome et al., 2009) suggest the importance of shifting students away from focusing primarily on formulating their own claims to attending to their opponents’ claims as well as garnering commitments from their opponents regarding the validity of students’ claims. Although some researchers (Felton, 2004; Felton & Herko, 2004; Kuhn & Crowell, in press; Kuhn, Goh, Iordanou, & Shaenfield, 2008; Kuhn & Udell, 2003) do not frame their intervention research using Bakhtinian theory, their rather consistent successes with efforts to support early adolescents in attending to an opponent’s claims and premises through engaging in active dialogue suggest double-voicing. For example, when 11th graders engaging in dialogue arguments were given explicit instructions through use of a graph to identify the different aspects of their own and others’ claims, the students were more likely to attend to their opponents’ claims (Felton & Herko, 2004). In defining how discourses mediate the construction or grounding of classroom literacy events shaping a Norwegian adolescent writer, Kari, in her argumentative writing about music, Evensen (2002) posited a theory of double dialogue, in which here-and-now claims operate as the foreground of the event that intertextually builds on prior dialogues or voices. Thus, Kari was writing in a classroom context constituted by her positive relationship with her teacher as a supportive audience who was familiar with the topic of Kari’s writing, folk music. At the same time, however, she was also writing within the background context of institutionalized norms constituting “Norwegian literate culture” (p. 397) as well as her peer adolescent culture that preferred hip-hop to folk music. Double dialogue thus provided Kari with a means to understand the challenge of gaining identification with her stance on folk music. To gain her peers’ identification of her position regarding the value of a certain type of folk music, she drew on prior language, discourses, and genres that “‘ring at the back of our social minds’ (Evensen, 2001a) as voices and intertextual allusions” (p. 404) serving as background shared experiences with peers that foreground her claims, a social practice that represents her rhetorical knowledge of prior interactions with those peers. To engage in double-voicing or reaccenting, students must also be aware of tensions between and within competing languages, discourses, or genres that undermine the potential for audience identification, as reflected in arguments on issues of abortion, gay rights,

and immigration. For example, in her ethnographic analysis of arguments in a working-class bar, Lindquist (2002) reported that as an academic, doctoral student who worked in the bar, certain class-based discourses of schooling shaped customers’ and her own assumptions about the nature of argumentation within this social context. For instance, her working-class customers framed their arguments by referencing the real world of everyday actions and experiences in opposition to what they perceived to be her theoretic, academic, speculative, what-if positions associated with schooling. As a result, her attempts to gain her audience’s identification for her what-if arguments often failed given the audience’s adherence to real-world discourses. Researchers have also examined how students and teachers construct rhetorical contexts by drawing on or double-voicing prior language, discourses, and genres. To analyze this process, Lunsford (2002) described how students and instructors in a college summer writing course for high school students adopted and represented the Toulmin (1958/2003) model of argument as well as how the instructors and students negotiated writing tasks with each other. Students in the class wrote argumentative essays employing the five elements of the Toulmin model: claims, reasons, evidence, warrants, and acknowledgments/responses. Students and teachers were continually negotiating and contesting the meanings of Toulmin’s key terms in their discussions, for example, by considering how the meaning of claims is related to the concept of point for organizing a paper or solution for identifying research goals. Students also drew on their previous conceptions of, for example, the idea of point as announcing one’s topic as opposed to defining point in the course as a series of points serving to organize arguments, as well as the idea that points do more than identify topics, as they need to be contestable. Lunsford’s (2002) analysis revealed that the instructors presented the Toulminian model to students as an integral part of a dynamic, evolving system of writing instruction. In this system, the model became aligned with and mediated by certain texts, authoritative figures, and readers by a specialized writing vocabulary and a criterion known as contestability. The analysis also showed that these alignments and expectations occasionally conf licted as participants mapped one reification of Toulmin’s key terms onto another. For example, students had conflicting notions as to what constituted claims, requiring them to draw on inquiry/ heuristic practices to examine their writing according to meanings local to the social context of the class. Although it is often assumed that students have difficulty determining warrants, Lunsford found that students had more difficulty distinguishing claims and data, in that


291

claims are heavily co-constructed and that the equation between a claim and thesis statement must be negotiated…. instead of isolating warrants as the problem, this analysis suggests that it would be better to understand how all of these elements are continually redefined. (pp. 161–162)

Studies such as Lunsford’s (2002) that reflect a social practice perspective raise significant questions regarding attempts to identify and assess uses of Toulmin’s claim–reason–warrant strategies based on standardized, objective criteria or rubrics, as these efforts fail to capture meanings specific to the context. Analysis of these contested, negotiated meanings suggests that classroom contexts challenge the idea of top-down applications of models of argument such as Toulmin’s model, whose concepts were continually being redefined and contested given the particulars of a classroom context. Given the centrality of transfer of social practices across different contexts, Lunsford’s analysis suggests that students are continually recontextualizing uses of argumentative literacy practices for engaging different audiences in different contexts through social practice as they receive feedback from their audiences (Ivanicˇ, 1998; Nystrand, Gamoran, & Carbonaro, 2001).

The Use of Student–Teacher Reciprocal, Dialogic Interactions Central to a social practices perspective is the assumption that students acquire argumentative literacy practices through active participation in dialogic interactions. Dialogic theories of argument as social practice posit the value of transfer of oral, collaborative interactions, unfolding over time to foster voicing of competing, rival perspectives on an issue, to argumentative writing. Within a social practices perspective, transfer occurs when the quality of these oral student–teacher and student–peer interactions support students’ development of voice, stances, discourses, genres, and sense of audience. Lunsford’s (2002) research has pointed to the importance of the social practice of supportive student– teacher and student–peer interactions in fostering argumentative reading and writing. Based on responses to their writing, elementary students learn to vary their use of language register as a tool for writing for official versus unofficial audiences (Dyson, 2008). Students learn to adopt more formal, resonant voices (Elbow, 2000) or discoursal voices (Ivanicˇ , 1998) through interactions with teacher-modeled uses of these voices (Lee, 2007) that build on rather than denigrate informal voices and encourage students to voice beliefs contrary to those espoused in texts or by the teacher (Gorzelsky, 2009). For example, in his analysis of two students’ argumentative writing in a Norwegian school, Smidt (2002)

292

found that the supportive teacher’s feedback to the students not only served to foster the their willingness to engage in effective argument but also reflected presuppositions about implied readers within the traditions of writing in Norwegian schools and the institutional norms operating within the school. This includes analysis of the types of assignments or genres operating in Norwegian school writing as “sociocultural norms that guide the students’ and teachers’ interpretation of what is expected of a school composition and more specifically what counts as a ‘personal essay’ as opposed to a ‘pragmatic analysis’” (p. 422). Smidt (2002) analyzed the development of two students over a two-year period in terms of their adoption of discourse roles and positionings (Ivanicˇ, 1998) as they varied their stances in adopting their roles given difference in audiences and rhetorical contexts. He found that the students positioned themselves according to the social practices of writing in school for a teacher, a positioning that differed from writing in nonschool contexts. The students’ teacher reciprocated by adopting certain positions based on his perceptions of the individual students and the norms operating in the school context. Through this reciprocal interaction, students also learn to construct persona or roles designed to establish ethos to provide audiences with a sense of credibility and believability (Nystrand, 1986). Students’ ability to construct persona and ethos depends on having a clear sense of their beliefs, goals, norms, and communal values operating in a certain rhetorical context or domain. Adopting these beliefs, goals, norms, and values themselves motivates the student to assume that persona or role based on emulating role models or mentors. For example, a student believes that the school is failing to serve enough healthy food options in the school cafeteria, presupposing the larger values of fostering a healthy lifestyle. The student then formulates a goal of changing the school administration’s attitudes regarding the status quo by recognizing the norm that students have less power than administrators, requiring them to adopt an ethos of a knowledgeable student committed to making change. These perceptions are constructed over time through dialogic interaction between students engaged in collaborative problem solving designed to address certain issues (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Walton, 1998, 2007). One limitation of the traditional one-shot persuasive essay assignment is that there is little ongoing development of arguments and counterarguments surrounding writing such essays; students have no reason to explore counterarguments, because they often do not receive counterarguments from the teacher and, therefore, have no reason for doing so. This limiting rhetorical context contrasts with engaging in


collaborative reasoning (R. Anderson et al., 2001) that involves what Nussbuam and Schraw (2007) defined as argument–counterargument integration through weighing the merits of competing positions, refuting arguments as false or unsupported, and moving toward some recommended synthesis or solution. Examining arguments as a dialogic interaction recognizes that most arguments occur through disagreements in everyday conversation (Felton & Kuhn, 2001). As previously noted, although researchers adopting a collaborative reasoning approach (e.g., Jadallah et al., 2011) may frame their studies within a cognitive perspective, their attention to social and linguistic processes also provides insights into how interactions in classroom contexts foster argument as social practice. According to Walton (1998, 2007), the rules for participating in these interactions vary according to six different types of dialogue: persuasion with the goal of resolving or clarifying an issue, inquiry with the goal of proving or disproving a hypothesis, negotiation with the goal of achieving a settlement, information seeking with the goal of exchanging information, deliberation with the goal of determining the best course of action, and eristic with the goal of revealing underlying reasons for a conflict. Although these different types of dialogue may involve some form of argumentation, the purposes for arguments vary according to different goals. For example, engaging in a deliberation to address an issue may involve brainstorming without any attempts to judge the validity of competing claims, whereas engaging in persuasion involves a proponent attempting to prove the validity of a claim with respondents challenging that validity. For Walton (1998, 2007), analyzing argumentative dialogue involves identifying a proponent’s specific moves and how a respondent reacts to those moves in which both are seeking certain commitments from the other based on accepting premises underlying the positions. These commitments are defined as partners’ explicit voicing of acceptance of these premises as opposed to partners’ beliefs that may not be explicitly stated. Once either partner accepts these premises, a proponent can then formulate a claim with the goal of having the respondent commit to agreeing to that claim, or the proponent can challenge the premises underlying the respondent’s alternative claims (Felton & Kuhn, 2001). It is also the case that these exchanges vary according to certain prototypical argument schemes (Walton et al., 2008), for example, the argument from positive consequences, in which a proponent adopts the premise that if A is adopted, then positive consequences will occur and hence A should be adopted. As a second example, the argument from analogy is that, given the premise that case C1 is similar to C2, and A is true or

false in C1, then A is also true or false in C2. As a third example, the appeal to expert opinion argument is that, given that E is an expert in a subject related to claim A and that E asserts that claim A is true or false, then A may be taken to be true or false. These various argumentative schemes can be used in the classroom to help focus analysis on particular types of arguments through representing arguments and then posing critical questions about each of the premises associated with certain types of arguments. For example, the appeal to expert opinion scheme is based on the premises that E is credible as an expert, is an expert in the field related to A and actually asserted A, is a reliable source, is consistent with other experts, and is basing A on evidence (Walton et al., 2008). Researchers have also found that knowledge of these dialogic interactions for argumentative purposes has its origins at an early age. Ehrlich and Blum-Kulka (2010) analyzed preschoolers’ peer talk in natural interactions to demonstrate that very young students may employ narrative reports of playground events, examine word definitions, provide instructions on how to play a game, or discuss an issue from different perspectives to construct arguments, as when a narrative is employed to make a claim. An analysis of two preschoolers’ arguments in trading and bargaining Pokémon stickers, for instance, revealed that refusal by one to give a sticker to the other resulted in the use of arguments involving appeals to third-party participants as well as addressing each other in the third person, strategies involving defining social relationships and ethos. Through the use of peer talk, children need to interactionally display more or less explicitly their viewpoints or positions. As a result, they become more equipped with the means to argue and think foremost within their own social and cultural peer milieu and probably in other contexts as well. (Ehrlich & Blum-Kulka, 2010, p. 226)

To examine developmental differences in dialogic argument based on Walton’s (1998, 2007) focus on how goals drive arguments, Felton and Kuhn (2001) compared seventh and eighth graders’ and young adults’ arguments in dyads over a period of five to six weeks. Based on coding of the goals adopted in the dialogues, the researchers found that the middle school students were less strategic in formulating their goals in the dialogues than were the young adults who employed counterarguments. In comparison to the middle school students, the young adults were also twice as likely to engage in more rebuttals and define their partners’ claims in a manner that served to weaken those claims. Felton and Kuhn noted that the middle school students may not have a clear sense of the differences between the goal of undermining a partner’s argument versus


293

the goal of undermining the partner’s specific claim by seeking clarification of and critiquing it. The researchers also noted that agreeing with others’ positions as opposed to simply disagreeing was an equally important argumentative strategy for enhancing one’s positions and gaining audience identification. Another example of the application of dialogic theory is represented by the idea of rival hypothesis thinking through the active exchange of claims and challenges to those claims (Flower, Long, & Higgins, 2000). One primary purpose for engaging in rival hypothesis thinking is to allow for the open sharing of competing perspectives on an issue so that different parties can collaboratively work together to develop solutions to those issues. Flower (2008) cited an example of how rival hypothesis thinking, or rivaling, as the participating adolescents named it, was used to address an attempt by the Pittsburgh police to impose a curfew on a neighborhood given the assumption that a curfew would deter crime. To challenge the proposed curfew, a group of young people from the neighborhood with the support of a community literacy center developed a pamphlet formulating reasons why the curfew would not deter crime. Distribution of the pamphlet to the neighbors and police led to a discussion of the issue among the young people, neighbors, and police. Subsequently, the police dropped the plan to impose a curfew. For Flower (2008), a key aspect of the young people’s success was their sense of agency associated with their willingness to seriously consider the neighbors’ and police’s claims for the need for a curfew so that the adolescents could then provide thoughtful counterarguments. As Flower noted, students acquire this dialogic agency through collectively responding to others’ acts and voices, in terms of their willingness to “go public, to engage in a dialogue that listens, speaks, and expects a response to which they are prepared to respond” (p. 205).

Fostering Dialogic Interaction in Online Contexts An important factor in creating online argumentative contexts is the degree to which students perceive their online interactions as shaping actual change in status quo practices, as opposed to simply arguing for the sake of arguing. In one of the coauthor’s studies, high school students participated in an online role-play activity on a social networking site for an extended period of time (R. Beach & Doerr-Stevens, 2009). Given their concern about what they perceived to be the school’s arbitrary policies on blocking websites, they wanted to propose changes to those policies. The students adopted roles representing competing stances on whether their school administrators should change these policies and formulated

294

pro–con arguments on a Ning discussion forum. Students double-voiced discourses of school administration, counseling, the law, adolescent resistance, and so forth to construct their personas’ stances (Beach & DoerrStevens, in press). At the completion of the role-play, the students stepped out of their roles and drew on material from the interaction to compose position papers. The students were engaged in this project, because they knew that they were developing actual arguments to present to the school administration to change their school’s policies. When the students were able to convince the administration to change the policies, unblock certain websites, and allow teachers access to YouTube, the students perceived their work as having some tangible outcome, an example of an authentic rhetorical context. This suggests the need to create classroom contexts driven by transfer of argument in online rehearsal contexts to actual contexts with tangible consequences. Studies of online digital interaction raise questions regarding the advantages of employing these online tools to foster collaborative argument. Comparisons of the quality of computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face arguments have generated mixed results. One study found that although the quality of arguments was higher for face-to-face arguments during the exchanges, there was no difference in students’ subsequent arguments (Joiner, Jones, & Doherty, 2008). An analysis of 12-year-olds’ use of argumentative strategies in online, synchronous chat room discussions over time found that students shifted in their ability to frame arguments (Morgan & Beaumont, 2003). In the beginning, the students failed to focus on either purpose (to persuade the reader to accept the writer’s position) or audience (the particular people you need to convince). This was writing that was coming from nowhere (from no felt conviction) and going nowhere (reaching out to no readers). (p. 150)

The students then participated in chat room dialogic argument related to the issue of single-sex classrooms. The teachers modeled the uses of argumentative strategies and had students review transcripts of the exchanges in the chat room for use of these strategies. For a later chat session on the issue of the nature of the punishments that students should be given for not wearing the school uniform, the teacher focused their attention on adopting alternative perspectives and making compromises to move students away from adopting rigid, preconfigured positions. This study points to teachers’ role in modeling alternative perspectives and the need to incorporate others’ voices in students’ written chats. Analysis of 24 secondary students’ online collaborative written chat debates found that the students learned to use the collaborative chats to formulate arguments, although the quality of the arguments varied


considerably (Laurinen & Marttunen, 2007). In their chat debate in 12 pairs, students assumed the roles of protagonist and antagonist to formulate arguments for and against each other’s positions, fostering the use of refutation and counterarguments. The use of collaborative speech acts were analyzed in terms of the use of questions or requests for clarifications, answers to questions or responses to issues, maintaining collaborative discussion, extending or summarizing others’ thoughts, and giving positive feedback, whereas noncollaborative speech acts were analyzed in terms of ignoring others’ ideas to focus on one’s own ideas or making unconnected comments. Although students benefited from the collaboration, only one of the 12 pairs was perceived to be employing sophisticated arguments, whereas many of the debates involved expression of opinions that limited the quality of arguments. One essential social practice in online arguments involves constructing a believable ethos in a virtual, rhetorical context, such as Second Life (Jamaludin, Chee, & Ho, 2009), Whyville, Quest Atlantis, SimCity, or Our Courts, or what Bogost (2007) described as persuasive games, such as World of Warcraft, EverQuest, Lineage II, or Civilization III, which involve formulating arguments on issues facing virtual inhabitants for virtual audiences. Analysis of two students’ construction of ethos in online discussions found that how these students were perceived by peers was a major factor in peers’ perceptions of the students’ ethos (Pickering, 2009). These perceptions of ethos in online contexts relates to the ability to establish social presence (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999; Swan, 2002) or telepresence (Bracken & Skalski, 2010) designed to engage audience identification. The degree to which audiences can interact with online material or be transported into or “be” in a virtual world can enhance social presence or telepresence in ways that can be used for argumentative purposes. For example, participants’ comments about YouTube postings represent what Jackson and Wallin (2009) defined as a back-and-forth rhetoric involving public, dialectic interactions between these postings that frame argumentation as a process rather than simply a product. The researchers’ analysis of 35,000 comment postings about a YouTube video portraying police tasing a college student protesting a speech found that 66% of the postings involved formulating a claim with a supporting reason, half of the postings were responding to other previous arguments, and 40% of the postings represented constructive disagreements with others, a reflection of what Jackson and Wallin perceived to be productive, online, public arguments. Studies of online argumentation raise significant issues for research regarding the ways in which social interactions foster substantive argumentative literacy

practices, especially work conducted within an ethnographic tradition that assumes literacy, social space, and identity as social practices. Although this issue has many components, consider the notion of identity that is essential in defining who is making an argument, to whom, for what purposes, and on what occasion. Leander and McKim (2003) considered concerns over identity play, which occurs in offline interaction as well as online spaces. The difference is that online space provides varying degrees of anonymity, offering some protection to participants. How researchers conceive of the role of identity in online argumentation shapes their warranting of empirical claims regarding issues of authenticity and the social relations that develop in online contexts. Some scholars have been skeptical about the authenticity of identity play in Internet use (Harrington & Bielby, 1995), whereas others have stated that there is a consistency between online and offline identities (Correll, 1995). In any case, those of us who study online argumentation must realize that connective ethnography (Leander & McKim, 2003) is in a nascent stage of development.

Use of Visual Rhetoric as an Argumentative Social Practice We perceive visual rhetoric to be an argumentative social practice mediated by multimodal uses of digital video, image, and music cultural tools, for example, the use of hip-hop or rap to frame political arguments that have both local and global resonances (Pennycook, 2010). Researchers have also examined these uses of images or videos as visual, multimodal rhetoric, with the images and videos acting as argumentative social practices (Handa, 2004; Hill & Helmers, 2004; Wysocki, Johnson-Eilola, Selfe, & Sirc, 2004; also see the viz. website [viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/], which is maintained by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas). This research challenged the assumption that images as nonverbal entities are incapable of being used for argumentative purposes, that is, to provide supportive reasons for a claim. Blair (2004) noted that although many ads are simply acts of persuasion, in that they do not proffer any reasons for purchasing a certain product and therefore do not constitute arguments, documentaries are designed to formulate arguments through the framing of reasons for societal problems in ways that have strong emotional resonance with audiences, recognizing that visual rhetoric can also be one-dimensional, vague, one-sided, ambiguous, and incapable of matching the complexity and abstraction of language. Analysis of the use of visual rhetoric also involves issues of transfer in terms of recontextualizing, or remediating and redesigning, uses of print literacies through uses of digital and visual literacies (Bezemer & Kress, 2008). In creating digital videos and storytelling


295

to address issues, students learn to assess the potential rhetorical uptake of their uses of images, sounds, music, and editing based on their assumptions about audiences’ semiotic and popular culture knowledge of the meanings of these images, sounds, music, and editing (Bruce, 2009; Dubisar & Palmeri, 2010). In proposing the need to integrate traditional print and new digital and visual literacies as parallel pedagogy, Leander (2009) proposed shifting from a traditional essayist focus on the “products of composition” to consider “how certain meta-level processes and dimensions of composition have powerful purchase across media” (p. 160). In analyzing his college students’ use of digital video to convey their big ideas or claims through the use of language and video, Leander had students define connections between the use of certain camera angles or visual transitions in iMovie editing features and the use of transitions or strategies in their writing as rhetorical moves. In making video documentaries about the effects of gentrification in Harlem, students were consistently considering their audiences’ knowledge and beliefs about the issue of gentrification in conducting interviews, selecting certain images, and editing their videos (Kinloch, 2010). Other theorists have drawn on the concept of kairos as referring to tensions and struggles between the writer and context document that challenge the selection of relevant, appropriate multimodal material for specific rhetorical contexts (Sheridan, Michel, & Ridolfo, 2009). The increased use of visual rhetoric in students’ multimodal argumentative writing raises the issue of assessing their multimodal writing when it is often the case that criteria employed in evaluating argumentative writing is largely print based. For example, in collaboratively constructing multimodal online texts, judging the effective construction of ethos assumes less in terms of particular individual uses of language, and more in terms of shared use of design, layout, and image selection (Warnick, 2007). Issues of assessment are further complicated by the fact that the construction of ethos in visual rhetoric often involves multiple producers collaboratively constructing ethos (Fleckenstein, 2007). Analysis of first-year composition instructors’ use of criteria to assess a visual rhetoric assignment found that instructors had difficulty employing criteria of coherence or clarity to assess the uses of visual components, leading the instructors to employ more holistic assessments based on aesthetic aspects and subjective impact (Ferstle, 2007).

Strengths and Limitations of a Social Perspective One of the strengths of a social perspective is that it shifts the unit of analysis to the local event as a rhetorical

296

context mediated by students’ uses of language, discourses, social genres, and visual rhetoric, uses shaped by the students’ engagement in issues of concern to them and writing for actual audiences, as opposed to writing on assigned issues for assigned or teacher audiences. Researchers can then identify students’ ability to employ particular social practices associated with the development of ethos, perspective-taking, gaining audience identification, double-voicing different discourses and stances, uses of visual rhetoric, and so forth (Prior et al., 2007) relative to the particular rhetorical demands operating in particular, local events. Perhaps most important, these practices capture students’ own constructions of the event as opposed to students’ ability to conform to the dictates of an assigned event in an experimental design. Studies within this perspective have suggested ways to transfer students’ uses of social practices in oral discussions or reading to construction of rhetorical events, for example, how the students’ acquisition of perspective-taking related to alternative arguments in a discussion may transfer to perspective-taking in formulating written arguments. Focusing on this construction process then provides teachers with strategies for creating equally engaging rhetorical events in their own classrooms. This focus on the local event as the unit of analysis can also be a limitation in terms of issues of relationships between the local and the global, given the lack of focus on “various hybrids, alliances, and multiple agents and agencies that simultaneously occupy acts of reading and writing. Agency is indeed alive and well in reading and writing but it is not a solo performance” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 347). The further challenge in focusing on the authentic local event is that students, as reflected in hip-hop, are double-voicing globalized texts and discourses that “have gone out well beyond the community boundaries that might once have generated and contained them” (Moss, 2011, p. 373). All of this suggests the need to shift the focus of debate about ownership of practices and spaces related to the local versus global to examine how a range of different argumentative social practices are employed in negotiating disputes and challenges to the status quo that draw on both the local and the global (Moss, 2011), for example, how the issue of illegal immigration is both a local and a global issue.

Conclusion and Implications for Further Research The value and significance of argumentative reading and writing in the contexts of schooling has been one of the unexamined assumptions in the study of literacy instruction. At one level, most authors begin with the


assumption that argumentative reading and writing lead inevitably to reasonableness and thoughtful consideration of a topic. At another level, we know very little about how reasonableness and thoughtfulness develop in classroom contexts and over time, so we have to look to research in other fields (Prior, 2005) or to studies that have limited ecological validity for K–12 and college writing classrooms for evidence that reading and writing argumentative writing have the effects that are often assumed. Perhaps most obvious in our review is that although there are research programs emphasizing argumentative reasoning and the modeling of argumentative reasoning (Kuhn, 2005; Reznitskaya & Anderson, 2002), these instructional programs do not address the teacher’s use of specific instructional methods in promoting the development of students’ argumentative reading and writing over time and the features of classroom life that impede or facilitate students’ appropriation of argumentative knowledge and strategies. In our review, we have suggested the need for research that integrates a cognitive perspective and a social perspective to study the teaching and learning of argumentative reading and writing in educational contexts. Such a research agenda would combine the study of cognitive processes and reasoning with the study of how such processes are supported by classroom teachers as they plan and enact instruction in a range of instructional contexts as represented in the collaborative reasoning research (e.g., Jadallah et al., 2011). A key element in doing so would include analysis of the use of discourse that occurs during the lesson as a window into the ways in which students are making sense of argumentative reading and writing tasks. Such an approach would draw on theoretical and empirical knowledge about discourse processing and text comprehension developed by cognitive psychologists, and the studies of literacy as social practice and events developed by educational researchers interested in how language is used in the classroom. What is also needed are studies that occur within the complexities of school and nonschool social contexts involving uses of actual, authentic purposes and audiences shaping students’ uses of argument, including the vagaries of teachers’ and students’ interpretations of discussion, reading, writing, and reasoning. For example, students are more likely to be engaged in generating arguments if they are addressing status quo issues that directly affect their lives and if they know that making such arguments may result in their audiences addressing problems in the status quo (R. Beach & Doerr-Stevens, 2009). As previously noted, students and teachers often experience tensions between evaluating use of argumentative writing to simply fulfill an assignment with no actual audience uptake versus engaging in

argumentative writing that has the potential to have actual uptake in changing an audience’s beliefs or actions (Berland & Reiser, 2009). Further research could examine the influence of writing in contexts with potential actual uptake versus no actual uptake on differences in students’ motivation and writing quality. We also believe that more research needs to focus on how acquiring argument practices contributes to the development of students’ civic and community engagement (Flower, 2008) and whether students are more likely to acquire argumentative reading and writing practices when placed in contexts in which the use of argument has the potential for changing problematic status quo, social world experiences that provide students with a sense of the value of argument in shaping their lives. Moreover, there is a need to analyze and understand teacher influences, that is, how teachers contribute to the development of a social/audience network that supports or thwarts the appropriation of an argument schema within the social contexts of the classroom instruction. We also need studies that examine instructional discourse patterns not only in student-sponsored discussions but also in teacher-sponsored instructional conversations in English language arts classrooms in a range of school contexts in which the focus is in teaching and learning argument schemata and stratagems for argumentative writing (Hillocks, 2010, 2011). In our review, we also noted a lack of research addressing a number of issues of transfer between reading, writing, and oral production as well as transfer of literacy practices across different fields or disciplines— research that examines, for example, how uses of argument in discussion of an issue transfers to writing about that issue (e.g., Reznitskaya et al., 2007). As we noted in this review, arguments related to the study of argumentative reading and writing differ according to adoption of a cognitive task position or discourse versus a social practice position or discourse. Students formulating arguments in a literature class based on a discourse of feminist literary analysis will build their claims on different presuppositions or warrants than will students formulating their arguments based on a discourse of new criticism/formalist analysis. We found little or no research on students’ awareness of how differences in discourses, or presuppositions operating across different fields or disciplines, shape their arguments, or how those discourses serve to recontextualize students’ arguments as social practices related to adopting certain personas or roles, stances, beliefs, or perceptions of audience (van Leeuwen, 2009). There is also a need to develop more fine-tuned means of assessing the quality of argumentative reading and writing, particularly in terms of assessing the use of social practices identified in this review. Although assessment criteria and rubrics have been developed


297

for analysis of the use of claims, supporting reasons, warrants, and counterarguments, less attention has been devoted to analysis of practices related to development of ethos, gaining audience identification, doublevoicing different discourses and stances, uses of visual rhetoric, and so forth (Prior et al., 2007). For example, one key factor in effective argumentative writing is the use of what Graff and Birkenstein (2006) described as metacommentary informing readers as to what and how writers are framing an argument, including dissociation from certain familiar positions or stances—the fact that a student is not adopting certain positions that could be attributed to their position (van Rees, 2009). More research is needed that examines the degree to which the use of metacommentary enhances the effectiveness and uptake of argumentative writing. We have also posited the need for examining argument as an ongoing process over time that incorporates collaborative discussion and writing. Further research also needs to build on the collaborative reasoning research (e.g., Reznitskaya et al., 2009) to examine how students’ dialogic oral adoption of alternative perspectives and discourses in online, computer-based interactions transfers to students’ argumentative writing. For researchers analyzing the use of online argumentative discussions, one challenge has to do with analysis or evaluation of what is a highly interactive process. Based on assessments of asynchronous discussions, Gant (2007) noted the limitations of the use of analytic and holistic scoring employed to assess the appropriateness of content or support for positions. She noted that analytic scoring can be time consuming, whereas holistic scoring may not capture specific strengths and weaknesses. She proposed a hybrid assessment model that analyzes the argument structure, levels of disagreement, and interaction. For example, such an assessment might consider the degree to which students “discuss agreement/disagreement with classmates’ analytical ref lections and provide explanation of logic; and/or respond to questions posed in classmates’ analytical reflections, and when appropriate, reference assigned readings, independent research, examples, and personal experience” (Gant, 2007, Figure 1). She is particularly concerned about the degree to which assessments are related to specific course learning objectives. In reviewing research from a cognitive perspective and a social perspective, we find that each provides its own particular insights on teachers’ support and how students employ argumentative reading and writing, suggesting the value of combining these perspectives for other literacy research topics. As an example, our notion of argumentative reading and writing is inclusive of Halliday’s (1994) metafunctions: the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual. Our review makes clear that although the cognitive perspective and the social

298

perspective tend to favor one function over the others, effective argument in most social and cultural contexts and academic domains requires expertise in all three. The successful reader or writer will be a person who can argue effectively using current or perhaps new rhetorical styles and structures to make his or her own ideational contributions to significant conversations within and across domains, and who can read thoughtfully and write with authority in ways that others will find interesting and convincing. Because there are so many arguments that are important to our social, cultural, academic, and professional worlds, reading and writing arguments are, in turn, a matter of developing an understanding of what is appropriate, why, when, and to and for whom, to make a contribution to those arguments in effective and compelling ways. We believe that educational contexts and dedicated, well- informed practitioners are keys to furthering students’ opportunities to acquire such knowledge of argumentative reading and writing. Yet, research has an important role to play in enhancing and sometimes changing teaching and learning; this requires an imaginative and thoughtful blending of the cognitive and social perspectives. Notes Although Felton and Kuhn (2001) implied a distinction between argumentive (i.e., about argument) versus argumentative (i.e., disputatious, contentious), we have opted to use the more common term argumentative. 2 Toulmin (1958/2003) pointed out that he did not have “in mind an analytical model like that which, among scholars of Communication, came to be called ‘the Toulmin model’” (p. vii). Using citation data from 1976 to 2007, Bizup (2009) argued that composition scholars have tended to consider and criticize Toulmin’s layout or model of argument rather than making use of the full arc of his scholarship on argument and reasoning. Preparation of this review was supported in part by the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education (grant R305A100786). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the positions or the policies of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. We would also like to acknowledge David Bloome’s suggestions regarding argument as a social practice. His ideas clarified and deepened our understanding of this concept. 1

References Anderson, D.D. (2008). The elementary persuasive letter: Two cases of situated competence, strategy, and agency. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3), 270–314. Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1–46. doi:10.1207/ S1532690XCI1901_1 Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York: Routledge. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.


Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (Eds.). (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Applebee, A.N. (with Auten, A., & Lehr, F.). (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Applebee, A.N. (1984). Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Applebee, A.N. (1991). Informal reasoning and writing instruction. In J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, & J.W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 401–414). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Applebee, A.N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Applebee, A.N., & Langer, J.A. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: What existing data tell us. Albany: Center on English Learning & Achievement, University at Albany, State University of New York. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed. & Trans., & C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds., & V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Ball, D.L., & Forzani, F.M. (2007). 2007 Wallace Foundation disting uished lecture: W hat ma kes education resea rch “educational”? E ducational Researche r, 36(9), 529 –540. doi:10.3102/0013189X07312896 Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Beach, K. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 101–139). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Beach, R., & Anson, C.M. (1988). The pragmatics of memo writing: Developmental differences in the use of rhetorical strategies. Written Communication, 5(2), 157–183. doi:10.1177/ 0741088388005002003 Beach, R., & Bridwell, L.S. (Eds.). (1984). New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford. Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (2009). Learning argument practices through online role-play: Toward a rhetoric of significance and transformation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6), 460–468. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.6.1 Beach, R., & Doerr-Stevens, C. (in press). Learning to engage in dialogic argument through participation in online role-play. In S. Kadjer & C. Young (Eds.), Technology and English education. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Beck, S.W. (2006). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in the teaching and learning of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 413–460. Belland, B.R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309. doi:10.1007/ s11423-009-9139-4 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age: Design-centered models of teaching and instruction. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 695–713). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bergmann, L.S., & Zepernick, J. (2007). Disciplinarity and transfer: Students’ perceptions of learning to write. WPA Journal, 31(1/2), 124–149. Berland, L.K., & Reiser, B.J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. doi:10.1002/ sce.20286 Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Berrill, D.B. (Ed.). (1996). Perspectives on written argument. Creskill, NJ: Hampton. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. doi:10.1177/0741088307313177 Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Bizup, J. (2009). The uses of Toulmin in composition studies. College Composition and Communication, 61(1), W1–W23. Blair, J.A. (2004). The possibility and actuality of visual arguments. In C. Handa (Ed.), Visual rhetoric in a digital world: A critical sourcebook (pp. 344–363). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Bloome, D., Beierle, M., Grigorenko, M., & Goldman, S. (2009). Learning over time: Uses of intercontextuality, collective memories, and classroom chronotopes in the construction of learning opportunities in a ninth-grade language arts classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 313–334. doi:10.1080/09500780902954257 Bloome, D., Carter, S.P., Christian, B.M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events: A microethnographic perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Booth, W.C. (1963). The rhetorical stance. College Composition and Communication, 14(3), 139–145. Bracken, C.C., & Skalski, P.D. (Eds.). (2010). Immersed in media: Telepresence in everyday life. New York: Routledge. Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337–356. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3403_4 Britt, M.A., Kurby, C.A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C.R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 52–84. doi:10.1080/01638530701739207 Brooks, C.D., & Jeong, A. (2006). Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education, 27(3), 371–390. doi:10.1080/01587910600940448 Brooks, K. (2011). Resistance is futile: “Reaccenting” the present to create classroom dialogues. Pedagogies, 6(1), 66–80. Bruce, D.L. (2009). Writing with visual images: Examining the video composition processes of high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 426–450. Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. Calfee, R.C., & Chambliss, M.J. (1987). The structural design features of large texts. Educational Psychologist, 22(3/4), 357–378. Calfee, R.C., & Chambliss, M.J. (2011). Research designs for empirical research. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 386–399). New York: Routledge. Camp, R. (1993). Changing the model for the direct assessment of writing. In M.M. Williamson & B.A. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 45–78). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.


299

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Cavagnetto, A.R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. doi:10.3102/ 0034654310376953 Chambliss, M.J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 778–807. Chambliss, M.J., & Garner, R. (1996). Do adults change their minds after reading persuasive text? Written Communication, 13(3), 291– 313. doi:10.1177/0741088396013003001 Chambliss, M.J., & Murphy, P.K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34(1), 91–115. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3401_4 Chinn, C.A. (2006). The microgenetic method: Current work and extensions to classroom research. In J.L. Green, G. Camilli, & P.R. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 439–456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, M., & Riel, M. (1989). The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 143–159. Coirier, P., & Andriessen, J. (Eds.). (2000). Foundations of argumentative text processing. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: The Lesbian Cafe. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 270– 298. doi:10.1177/089124195024003002 Council of Chief State School Officers & National Governors Association. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from www.corestandards.org/the-standards Crammond, J.G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230–268. doi:10.1177/0741088398015002004 Crisco, V. (2009). Activating activist literacy: Discovering dispositions for civic identity development. Composition Studies, 37(2), 31–51. Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348–359. Dansereau, D.F. (1995). Derived structural schemas and the transfer of knowledge. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 93–121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Davies, W.M. (2009). Computer-assisted argument mapping: A “rationale” approach. Higher Education, 58(6), 799–820. Dong, T., Anderson, R.C., Kim, I., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 400–424. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.4.5 Dowell, J., Tscholl, M., Gladisch, T., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2009). Argumentation scheme and shared online diagramming in case-based collaborative learning. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou, A. (Eds.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 567–575). Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Dubisar, A.M., & Palmeri, J. (2010). Palin/pathos/Peter Griffin: Political video remix and composition pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 27(2), 77–93. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2010.03.004 Durst, R.K. (1999). Collision course: Conf lict, negotiation, and learning in college composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

300

Dwyer, C.P., Hogan, M.J., & Stewart, I. (2010). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning tool: Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1), 16–22. doi:10.1016/ j.tsc.2009.05.001 Dyson, A.H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12(1), 4–46. doi:10.1177/0741088395012001002 Dyson, A.H. (1999). Transforming transfer: Unruly children, contrary texts, and the persistence of the pedagogical order. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 141–171). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Dyson, A.H. (2000). Writing and the sea of voices: Oral language in, around, and about writing. In R. Indrisano & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 45–65). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Dyson, A.H. (2008). The Pine Cone Wars: Studying writing in a community of children. Language Arts, 85(4), 305–315. Easterday, M.W., Aleven, V., & Scheines, R. (2007). ’Tis better to construct or to receive? Effect of diagrams on analysis of social policy. In R. Luckin, K.R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 93–100). Amsterdam: IOS. Ehrlich, S.Z., & Blum-Kulka, S. (2010). Peer talk as a double opportunity space’: The case of argumentative discourse. Discourse & Society, 21(2), 211–233. doi:10.1177/0957926509353847 Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K.D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–328). New York: Cambridge University Press. Erdura n, S., & Jiménez-A leixa nd re, M.P. (E ds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroombased research. New York: Springer. Evensen, L.S. (2002). Convention from below: Negotiating interaction and culture in arg umentative writing. Written Communication, 19(3), 382–413. doi:10.1177/074108802237750 Felton, M.K. (2004). The development of discourse strategies in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development, 19(1), 35–52. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001 Felton, M.K., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(8), 672–683. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 135–153. Ferretti, R.P., Andrews-Weckerly, S., & Lewis, W.E. (2007). Improving the argumentative writing of students with learning disabilities: Descriptive and normative considerations. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 267–285. doi:10.1080/10573560701277740 Ferretti, R.P., MacArthur, C.A., & Dowdy, N.S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psycholog y, 92(4), 694–702. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694 Ferstle, T. (2007). Assessing visual rhetoric: Problems, practices and possible solutions. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. Fleckenstein, K.S. (2007). Who’s writing? Aristotelian ethos and the author position in digital poetics. Kairos, 11(3). Retrieved July 21, 2010, from kairos.technorhetoric.net/11.3/binder.html?topoi/ fleckenstein/index.html Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, 40(3), 282–311.


Flower, L. (2008). Community literacy and the rhetoric of public engagement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Flower, L., Long, E., & Higgins, L. (2000). Learning to rival: A literate practice for intercultural inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Freedman, A. (1996). Genres of argument and arguments as genres. In D.P. Berrill (Ed.), Perspectives on written argument (pp. 91– 120). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Freed ma n, A., & Pr ingle, I. (1984). W hy st udents ca n’t w r ite a rg u ments. E ngli sh in E du cat i on, 18(2), 73 – 84. doi:10.1111/j.1754-8845.1984.tb00668.x Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gant, C. (2007). Assessing asynchronous discussions: An exploratory hybrid model. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(3). Retrieved March 1, 2011, from www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall103/gant103.htm Gárate, M., Melero, M.Á., Tejerina, I., Echevarría, E., & Gutiérrez, R. (2007). Written argumentative abilities of 4th grade students of compulsory secondary education: An integrated educational intervention. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 30(4), 589–602. doi:10.1174/021037007782334346 Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge. Gee, J.P., & Green, J.L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169. Gélat, M. (2003). Taking others’ perspectives in a peer interactional setting while preparing for a written argument. Language and Education, 17(5), 332–354. doi:10.1080/09500780308666855 Gillies, R.M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting reasoned argumentation, problem-solving and learning during smallgroup work. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 7–27. doi:10.1080/03057640802701945 Gorzelsky, G. (2009). Working boundaries: From student resistance to student agency. College Composition and Communication, 61(1), 64–84. Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2006). “They say/I say”: The moves that matter in academic writing. New York: W.W. Norton. Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: Guilford. Green, J.L., Camilli, G., & Elmore, P.B. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Green, J.L., Dixon, C.N., & Zaharlick, A. (2003). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Haas, C., & Flower, L. (1988). R hetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39(2), 167–183. Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New horizons in linguistics (pp. 140–165). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Handa, C. (Ed.). (2004). Visual rhetoric in a digital world: A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Harrington, C.L., & Bielby, D.D. (1995). Where did you hear that? Technology and the social organization of gossip. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3), 607–628. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00456.x

Haswell, R.H., Briggs, T.L., Fay, J.A., Gillen, N.K., Harrill, R., Shupala, A.M., et al. (1999). Context and rhetorical reading strategies: Haas and Flower (1988) revisited. Written Communication, 16(1), 3–27. doi:10.1177/0741088399016001001 Hayes, J.R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28–40). New York: Guilford. Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hill, C.A., & Helmers, M. (Eds.). (2004). Defining visual rhetorics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hillocks, G., Jr. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Hillocks, G. (2007). Writing in secondary schools. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 311–329). New York: Erlbaum. Hillocks, G., Jr. (2010). Teaching argument for critical thinking and writing: An introduction. English Journal, 99(6), 24–32. Hillocks, G., Jr. (2011). Teaching argument writing: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Holliway, D.R. (2004). Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience perspective in children’s descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 334–349. doi:10.1080/02568540409595045 Iran-Nejad, A., & Pearson, P.D. (Eds.). (1999). Review of research in education: Vol. 24. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Ivanicˇ, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jackson, B., & Wallin, J. (2009). Rediscovering the “back-andforthness” of rhetoric in the age of YouTube. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), W374–W396. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B.W., Kim, I., Kuo, L., et al. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230. doi:10.3102/0002831210371498 Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y.S., & Ho, C.M.L. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53(2), 317–329. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2009.02.009 Johannessen, L.R., Kahn, E.A., & Walter, C.C. (2009). Writing about literature (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conf lict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37–51. doi:10.3102/0013189X08330540 Joiner, R., Jones, S., & Doherty, J. (2008). Two studies examining argumentation in asynchronous computer mediated communication. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 243–255. doi:10.1080/17437270802416848 Karchmer-Klein, R. (2007). Audience awareness and Internet publishing: A qualitative analysis of factors influencing how fourth graders write electronic text. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 39–50. Kinloch, V. (2010). Harlem on our minds: Place, race, and the literacies of urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Kirschner, P.A., Shum, S.J.B., & Carr, C.S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer-Verlag.


301

Kobayashi, K. (2009). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 130–134. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001 Kobayashi, K. (2010). Strategic use of multiple texts for the evaluation of arguments. Reading Psychology, 31(2), 121–149. doi:10.1080/02702710902754192 Kucan, L., & Beck, I.L. (2003). Inviting students to talk about expository texts: A comparison of two discourse environments and their effects on comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(3), 1–29. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (in press). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science. Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79(5), 1310–1328. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01190.x Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 Langer, J.A. (1992). Speaking of knowing: Conceptions of understanding in academic disciplines. In A. Herrington & C. Moran (Eds.), Writing, teaching, and learning in the disciplines (pp. 69– 85). New York: Modern Language Association. Langer, J.A. (2002). Effective literacy instruction: Building successful reading and writing programs. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Langer, J.A., & Applebee, A.N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning (NCTE Research Report No. 22). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Larson, A.A., Britt, M.A., & Kurby, C.A. (2009). Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339–366. doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366 Laurinen, L.I., & Marttunen, M.J. (2007). Written arguments and collaborative speech acts in practising the argumentative power of language through chat debates. Computers and Composition, 24(3), 230–246. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.05.002 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leander, K. (2009). Composing with old and new media: Toward a parallel pedagogy. In V. Carrington & M. Robinson (Eds.), Digital literacies: Social learning and classroom practices (pp. 147–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leander, K.M., & McKim, K.K. (2003). Tracing the everyday ‘sitings’ of adolescents on the Internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 211–240. doi:10.1080/14636310303140 Lee, C.D. (2007). The role of culture in academic literacies: Conducting our blooming in the midst of the whirlwind. New York: Teachers College Press. Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388. doi:10.1177/0741088308319229 Lindquist, J. (2002). A place to stand: Politics and persuasion in a working-class bar. New York: Oxford University Press. Lund, K., Molinari, G., Séjourné, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when student pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 273–295. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9019-z

302

Lunsford, K.J. (2002). Contextualizing Toulmin’s model in the writing classroom: A case study. Written Communication, 19(1), 109–174. doi:10.1177/074108830201900105 Marini, A., & Genereux, R. (1995). The challenge of teaching for transfer. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martínez, R.A., Orellana, M.F., Pacheco, M., & Carbone, P. (2008). Found in translation: Connecting translating experiences to academic writing. Language Arts, 85(6), 421–431. McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A., & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 194–204. McCann, T.M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 62–76. Melzer, D. (2009). Writing assignments across the curriculum: A national study of college writing. College Composition and Communication, 61(2), W240–W261. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 21(1/2), 131–151. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9067-9 Miller, C.R., & Charney, D. (2007). Persuasion, audience, and argument. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 583–589). New York: Erlbaum. Moje, E.B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E.B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 15–48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Morgan, W., & Beaumont, G. (2003). A dialogic approach to argumentation: Using a chat room to develop early adolescent students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(2), 146–157. Moss, G. (2011). Ethnographic research in teaching and learning the English language arts: Studying the cultural contexts of teaching and learning the English language arts. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 370–374). New York: Routledge. Nussbaum, E.M., & Kardash, C.M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 Nussbaum, E .M., & Sch raw, G. (2007). Promoting a rg ument–counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. doi:10.3200/ JEXE.76.1.59-92 Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic. Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford. Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Carbonaro, W. (2001). On the ecology of classroom instruction: The case of writing in high school English and social studies. In P. Tynjälä, L.Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 57–81). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Nystrand, M., & Graff, N. (2001). Report in argument’s clothing: An ecological perspective on writing instruction in a seventh-grade classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 479–493. Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of


Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230–240. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91 .2.230 Parodi, G. (2007). Reading–writing connections: Discourse-oriented research. Reading and Writing, 20(3), 225–250. doi:10.1007/ s11145-006-9029-7 Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. New York: Routledge. Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Persky, H.R., Daane, M.C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (NCES 2003-529). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Pickering, K.W. (2009). Student ethos in the online technical communication classroom: Diverse voices. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(2), 166–187. doi:10.1080/10572250802708303 Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B.M. (Eds.). (in press). Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills. Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science. Powell, A.G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D.K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pressley, M. (with El-Dinary, P.B., Brown, R., Schuder, T., Bergman, J.L., York, M., et al.). (1995). A transactional strategies instruction Christmas carol. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 177–213). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Prior, P.A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Prior, P. (2005). Toward the ethnography of argumentation: A response to Richard Andrews’ ‘Models of arg umentation in educational discourse.’ Text, 25(1), 129–144. doi:10.1515/ text.2005.25.1.129 Prior, P., Solberg, J., Berry, P., Bellwoar, H., Chewning, B., Lunsford, K.J., et al. (2007). Re-situating and re-mediating the canons: A cultural-historical remapping of rhetorical activity. Kairos, 11(3). Retrieved September 9, 2010, from kairos.technorhetoric. net/11.3/topoi/prior-et-al/mapping/index.html Ramage, J.D., Bean, J.C., & Johnson, J. (2007). Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings (7th ed.). New York: Longman. Rampey, B.D., Dion, G.S., & Donahue, P.L. (2009). The nation’s report card: NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress (NCES 2009479). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R.C. (2002). The argument schema and learning to reason. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319–334). New York: Guilford. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., & Kuo, L. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R.C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 155–175. Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R.C., et al. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. doi:10.1080/03057640802701952 Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J. Soler (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Reprinted from Sociocultural studies of mind, pp. 139–164,

by J.V. Wertsch, P. del Río, & A. Alvarez, Eds., 1995, New York: Cambridge University Press) Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71. Russell, D.R. (2009). Uses of activity theory in written communication research. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K.D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 40–52). New York: Cambridge University Press. Russell, D.R. (2010). Writing in multiple contexts: Vygorskian CHAT meets the phenomenology of genre. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, et al. (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 353–364). New York: Routledge. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Salminen, T., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2010). Visualising knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 379–391. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B.M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102. doi:10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x Schwarz, B.B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2/3), 297–313. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9020-6 Schwarz, B.B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 449–478. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2 Schwarz, B.B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right…if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2 Sexton, M., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1998). Self-regulated strategy development and the writing process: Effects on essay writing and attributions. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 295–311. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. Sheehy, M. (2003). The social life of an essay: Standardizing forces in writing. Written Communication, 20(3), 333–385. doi:10.1177/0741088303257279 Sheridan, D., Michel, T., & Ridolfo, J. (2009). Kairos and new media: Toward a theory and practice of visual activism. Enculturation, 6(2). Retrieved July 10, 2010, from enculturation.gmu.edu/6.2/ sheridan-michel-ridolfo Shulman, L.S. (1997). Disciplines of inquiry in education: A new overview. In R.M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Theory and method in research on literacy practices: Adaptations and alignment in research and praxis. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 405–409). New York: Routledge. Smidt, J. (2002). Double histories in multivocal classrooms: Notes toward an ecological account of writing. Written Communication, 19(3), 414–443. doi:10.1177/074108802237753 Spartz, J.M. (2010). Rhetorical savvy as social skill: Modeling entrepreneur identity construction within educational content management systems. The Writing Instructor, May. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from www.writinginstructor.com/spartz Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported


303

collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447. doi:10.1007/s11412-007 -9028-y Street, B.V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. New York: Longman. Street, B. (2004). Academic literacies and the ‘new orders’: Implications for research and practice in student writing in higher education. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1(1), 9–20. doi:10.1386/ltss.1.1.9/0 Suthers, D.D., & Hundhausen, C.D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2 Suthers, D.D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103–1127. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49. doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016 Tannen, D. (1999). The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York: Ballantine. Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958) Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1293–1313. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.004 van Eemeren, F.H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A.F.S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 144–161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. van Rees, A. (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Springer. Voss, J.F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of illstructured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321–329. doi:10.1007/ s10503-005-4419-6 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Trans. & Ed.; V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

304

Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Walton, D. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Walton, D. (2011). Computational dialectic and rhetorical invention. AI & Society, 26(1), 3–17. doi:10.1007/s00146-010-0279-1 Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ward, M., Sr. (2009). Squaring the learning circle: Cross-classroom collaborations and the impact of audience on student outcomes in professional writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(1), 61–82. doi:10.1177/1050651908324381 Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding ‘transfer’ from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. WPA Journal, 31(1/2), 65–85. Warnick, B. (2007). Rhetoric online: Persuasion and politics on the World Wide Web. New York: Peter Lang. Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press. Wiley, J., & Bailey, J. (2006). Effects of collaboration and argumentation on learning from Web pages. In A.M. O’Donnell, C.E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 297–322). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wiley, J., & Voss, J.F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301–311. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301 Wolfe, C.R., & Britt, M.A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 14(1), 1–27. doi:10.1080/13546780701527674 Wolfe, C.R., Britt, M.A., & Butler, J.A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the myside bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26(2), 183–209. doi:10.1177/0741088309333019 Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 184–201. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.2.4 Wysocki, A.F., Johnson-Eilola, J., Selfe, C.L., & Sirc, G. (2004). Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of composition. Logan: Utah State University Press. Yeh, S.S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49–83.

George E. Newell is a professor in the School of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA; e-mail [email protected]. Richard Beach is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA; e-mail [email protected]. Jamie Smith and Jennifer VanDerHeide are doctoral students in the School of Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University, USA.


Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading ... - Wiley Online Library

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading ... - Wiley Online Library

Suggest Documents

Teaching reading through writing - Wiley Online Library

Reading Games - Wiley Online Library

On reading - Wiley Online Library

Teaching and Learning Guide for: YouthÃ¢ ... - Wiley Online Library

Dissection in learning and teaching gross ... - Wiley Online Library

Teaching and learning normal gynecological ... - Wiley Online Library

Teaching, learning and new technology: a ... - Wiley Online Library

LLL3D's contribution to teaching and learning ... - Wiley Online Library

Teaching Psychology - Wiley Online Library

Teaching Bioethics - Wiley Online Library

Reading and Generalist Genes - Wiley Online Library

Teaching Communications and Professionalism ... - Wiley Online Library

Relating exemplary teaching to student learning - Wiley Online Library

Changing the Focus from Teaching to Learning ... - Wiley Online Library

Assessing Practicebased Learning and ... - Wiley Online Library

Learning and Teaching Online

Online Teaching and Learning

Teaching Women's Health Skills - Wiley Online Library

MBA Teaching In Malaysia - Wiley Online Library

Teaching and Learning Reading Through Play - Idosi

Teaching and Learning Critical Reading with

Teaching and Learning Reading Through Play - Idosi

Teaching and Learning Reading Through Play - Idosi.org

Teaching and Learning Critical Reading with ...