Understanding and Developing Middle School Students’ Text-Based Argumentative Writing Skills

1. Understanding and Developing Middle School Students’Text-Based Argumentative Writing Skills A Literature Review Elaine Wang Learning Sciences & Policy Ph.D. Program Milestone 3 Presentation June 10, 2013

2. The Argument for Teaching Text-Based Argumentative Writing in Middle School • Proficiency is argumentation is widely acknowledged as a central educational goal (Andrews, 1995; Kuhn, 1992; Kuhn & Udell, 2003; Reznitskaya et al., 2011) • Written argumentation allows for participation in democratic society and is an effective tool for supporting learning • Producing arguments based on text is a particularly worthwhile, high-level skill • Evidence of underdeveloped argumentation skills in adults and high school students (e.g., Applebee et al., 1994; Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005) suggests developing skills earlier could reverse trends • CCSS ELA Standards positions 6th grade as pivotal in development of argumentative writing skills

3. Defining the Terrain of the Review • Key Terms • Arguing, argument, argumentation • Argumentative writing skills (written argumentation skills) • Text-based argumentative writing • Cognitive Perspective of the Study of Argumentation • argumentation as a cognitive task that requires task-specific knowledge • often analyzed with a model of argumentation • focuses on the rhetorical and structural components of argumentation or the argumentation schema • Search Criteria • Empirical studies on teaching and learning of argumentation skills • Peer-reviewed journals • 1980s onward • Studies pertain to general student population

4. Characterizing Students’ Argumentation Skills

5. Review of Extant Research • Some students do not produce writing that can be considered argumentative (Crowhurst, 1983) • Of those that do, their written argumentation features three main elements: claim, reasons, evidence (Crammond, 1998; Knudson, 1992; McCann, 1989) • Other advanced features (e.g., counterarguments, warrants) are largely lacking (Crammond, 1998; Crowhurst, 1980, 1983; Knudson, 1992; McCann, 1989) • Writing typically features clear statement of position, but reasoning and use of evidence are weak

6. Critique of Extant Research & Directions for Future Research • Developmental perspective (Wilkinson et al., 1980; Crowhurst, 1980, 1983; Crammond, 1998; Knudson, 1992; McCann, 1989) fails to recognize that (text-based) argumentative writing is a new school-based practice/genre • Argumentative writing rarely text-based (e.g., Knudson, 1992; McCann, 1989) • Limited sample size (Crammond, 1998; Knudson, 1992; McCann, 1989) • Scoring guide based heavily on Toulmin’smodel (Crammond, 1998; Knudson, 1992; McCann, 1989) • Quantification of measurescontribute minimally to fuller understanding of nature and quality of students’ reasoning and use of evidence

7. Interventions for Developing Text-Based Written Argumentation Skills

8. Review of Extant Research • Both discourse-based approaches (Kuhn et al., 1997; Reznitskaya et al., 2001, 2007, 2011)and SRSD (Graham, 2006; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006) – show promise for developing argumentation (Coker & Erwin, 2011) • Discourse-based approaches demonstrate gains for oral argumentation (Felton, 2004; Kuhn et al., 1997); transfer to written argumentation not conclusive (Reznitskaya et al., 2001, 2007, 2012) • SRSD appears to improve students’ argumentative writing (De La Paz, 1999; De La Paz & Graham, 2002; Harris et al., 2012) • More elaborated goals result in more persuasive essays (Ferretti et al. 2000, 2009; Midgetteet al., 2008) • Explicit instruction in argumentation concepts did not yield clear results (Kleinet al., 1997; Reznitskaya et al., 2007; Yeh, 1998)

9. Critique of Extant Research & Directions for Future Research • Interventions (e.g., CR) do not seem to be based on or respond to students’ areas of weakness or needs • Prompts are text-free (e.g., Reznitskaya, 2001; Reznitskaya, et al., 2001, 2007, 2009) and not necessarily argumentative (e.g., De La Paz, 1999; De La Paz & Graham, 2002) • Discourse-based approaches dismiss whole-class discussions (e.g., Reznitskaya, 2001; Reznitskaya, et al., 2001, 2007, 2009) • Gains from discourse-based approaches may not transfer to individual writing (Reznitskaya et al., 2012) • Research well-delineated into two lines of research (i.e., discourse-based, writing instruction); synthesis or combination of multiple approaches unexplored

10. Proposed Dissertation Studies & Research Questions

11. Study 1: Corpus Study • Design & Goals • Corpus study • To deeply understand and characterize text-based argumentative writing skills of entering middle-school students • To explore additional criteria used to examine student writing • Potential Data • Student writing drawn from ~500 pieces of writing from ~20 classrooms • Randomly sample 4 pieces of writing from each class

12. Study 1: Research Questions • How do entering middle school students construct argument based on or in response to text? • How do entering middle school students use the text as evidence in text-based argumentative writing? • What additional measures or criteria (i.e., beyond basic Toulmin Model) might be useful in assessing and characterizing students’ text-based argumentative writing?

13. Study 2: PD Intervention • Design & Goal • Pre- and post-test quasi-experimental • Develop and pilot PD with 3-4 6th-grade teachers • To support 6th-grade teachers in teaching text-based argumentative writing • Potential PD Components • Enhancing content knowledge • Facilitating text-based discussions • Designing argumentative writing tasks • Analyzing/assessing students’ argumentative writing • Potential Data • Pre- and post- teacher interviews • Observation of class discussions and writing instruction • Artifacts (e.g., writing tasks, student work) • Pre- and post- writing assessment

14. Study 2: Research Questions • What do teachers view as features of strong text-based argumentative writing? • What opportunities do students have to engage in reasoning and to use evidence in class text discussions? • What opportunities do students have to engaging in reasoning and to use evidence in writing tasks? • How do student’s text-based argumentative writing skills change as a result of the professional development?

15. For Discussion

16. For Discussion: Literature Review • Genre Theory as Theoretical Framework • Ground review/critique of literature in theory of writing instruction and writing development • Avoid dichotomizing the cognitive & social perspectives on the study of argumentation • Expand literature review to include secondary level • Expand literature review beyond the two major types of practices (i.e., discourse-based & SRSD) • Consider experimental & quasi-experimental studies about process writing, peer review, collaborative writing (Graham & Perin, 2007)

17. For Discussion: Proposed Studies • Two studies? • Grade level? • Sampling (Study 1) / Number of participants (Study 2)? • Consider other practices (other than those based in CR or SRSD) in designing intervention? • CR shows discussion has an unclear effect on argumentative writing, so consider a different strategy (e.g., collaborative writing), which has been shown to work for informational and narrative writing • Content & scope of intervention? • Discussions? Assignment tasks? Writing instruction?