Four Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Argumentative

DiscourseBy Manya ChappellDoctoral Candidate

Mississippi State University

IntroductionArgumentative Literacy has been defined as the heart

and soul of education (Alfassi, 2009; Schmoker, 2006).Argumentative Literacy is the ability to read, think, and

listen critically; engage in argumentative discourse; and write arguments.

Toulmin (1959) describes argument as gathering evidence, using that evidence to make a claim, providing warrants, backing warrants with evidence, anticipating and addressing counter-arguments, and crafting rebuttals that may include qualifiers.

Reznitskaya (2001) revisited Toulmin’s argument and created the argument schema theory for use with children.

IntroductionIn preparation for the demands of

argumentative literacy, pre-service teachers must understand argumentative discourse (the live conversations in a classroom that help to cultivate the thought processes of students in regards to argument), a building block for argumentative literacy.

PurposeResearchers and practitioners suggest that

meaningful discourse improves students’ ability to think critically and to create the back-and-forth conversations that should happen in their heads as they form arguments (Brown & Keeley, 2004; Hidia,Berndorffa, & Ainleyb, 2002; Hillocks, Jr, 2010, 2011; Lazere, 2006; McClutchen, 2006; Voss, 2001; Wilhem, 2007).

ParticipantsPerson Age Group Experience with

Argument Home State Occupation Sex Race

Amy Traditional Student (ages 18-23)

Some in K-12 and Some in College

Missisippi Full-time Student

F W

Bianca Traditional Student (ages 18-23)

None in K-12 and Some in College

Mississippi Full-time Student

F W

Jesse Traditional Student (ages 18-23)

None in K-12 or College

Mississippi Full-time Student

F W

Lisa Traditional Student (ages 18-23)

Some in K-12 and Some in College

Alabama Full-time Student

F W

Research QuestionsThis study focused upon the following research

questions:What are pre-service teachers’ initial

perceptions of argumentative discourse? How do pre-service teachers’ perceptions of

argumentative discourse change when exposed to explicit teaching in argumentative discourse?

What are pre-service teachers’ predictions about teaching argument in their own classrooms in the future?

Theoretical LensSocio-Cognitive Perspective (Bandura, 1988,

2001)Argument Schema Theory (Reznitskaya, et

al., 2001, 2007)Situated Learning/Apprenticeship of

Observation (Darling-Hammond, 2005; Heaton & Mickelson, 2002; Lave & Wagner, 1991; Lortie, 1975)

Socio-Cognitive PerspectiveArgumentative discourse is not only

cognitive, but it is also social. Understanding argumentative discourse through a socio-cognitive perspective sheds new light on the subject of argumentative discourse. Cognitively speaking, argument is the core of critical thinking, and thus, carries with it a set of cognitive skills which must acquire, develop, hone, use, and transfer to different situations (Newell, Beach, Smith, and VanDerHeide, 2011).

Socio-Cognitive PerspectiveJust as the word discourse implies, discussion,

communication, and interaction must take place for discourse to happen. Social learning creates assimilation for knowledge acquired. Vygotsky admonished teachers to give students rich experiences so that they would learn and apply the information. He said “… pedagogical experience demonstrates that direct instruction in concepts is impossible. It is pedagogically fruitless…It substitutes the learning of dead and empty verbal schemes for the mastery of living knowledge (1987, p. 170).” Acquiring skills without being allowed to use those skills can create “dead and empty verbal schemes”.

Argument Schema TheoryClaimWarrant – SupportsCounter-ArgumentRebuttalQualifiers

Reznitskaya et al. 2001

Situated Learning/Apprenticeship of ObservationStudents co-construct their learning through

social interaction and the community context of their situation (Lave & Wagner, 1991). Learning takes place in concrete, practical surroundings and in social interactions.

Situated Learning/Apprenticeship of ObservationLortie (1975) introduced apprenticeship of

observation.It is the idea that 13 years of school create

the framework for the belief system one has for learning.Intuitiveness about how schools should be runIntuitiveness about how children should

behaveIntuitiveness about how teachers are supposed

to act

MethodsHow Analysis Was Conducted

Triangulated several forms of data collection in NVIVO10 Structured & Written Interviews Reflections Classroom Participation Written Arguments

Description of InterviewsOne on OneWritten Interview Questions

Research was conducted in my office, in the classroom, and from analyzing interviews, documents, and reflections.

Findings Before Involvement in Argumentative DiscoursePre-Service Teachers (3 out of 4) who were not exposed to

argument in K-12 did not have knowledge of what it was.While Amy had written an argument in 11th grade, she did not

know what argumentative discourse might look like in a classroom.

Pre-service teachers (Bianca & Jess) equated argumentative discourse with unorganized fighting.

Pre-service teachers (all four) were apprehensive about using argumentative discourse in the classroom.

Pre-service teachers (3 out of 4)wanted to avoid sensitive issues.

The only pre-service teacher (Lisa) who had previously been exposed to discourse and persuasion felt more confident with learning about argumentative discourse.

Findings During Involvement in Argumentative Discourse

Pre-Service Teachers had a hard time making a claim. They wanted to summarize their

readings.did not provide backing for warrants. Bianca would open a statement

with “In my opinion….”.were slow to provide counter-arguments or rebuttals. They were

awkward with voicing “points of interest”.reflected that argument lends importance to informational texts

reading. Amy said “I wish I had read more and taken more notes for our discussions.”

suggested that argumentative discourse challenges curiosity.concluded that argumentative discourse demanded close listening.

Bianca said, “Today’s class wasn’t like the others. I had to pay attention.”

revised definition of argumentative discourse as not a fight, but rather a conversation between two opposing opinions…grounds for understanding.

Findings After Involvement in Argumentative Discourse

Pre-Service teachers concluded that learning to find and use research is vital to supporting

a claim.argumentative discourse is an engaging activity for

students.argumentative discourse provides for student voices

to be heard. the pre-service teacher now has strategies to use in

her classroom.argument provides a framework within which to share

opposing views calmly, yet passionately…heated discussion rather than heated fight.

they felt ready to engage in argumentative discourseargumentative discourse allows teachers to get to

know their students.argumentative discourse strengthens writing and

communicative skills. (Only after classroom conversations and reflections of those conversations, pre-service teachers wrote their arguments.)

Findings Four Months After Involvement in Argumentative Discourse

Students had not been involved in any argument activities while in pre-service program (Senior Block).

“I want to use argument, but I don’t know if I remember how.” – Amy

“I loved doing arguments in class, but I don’t get a chance to do it now. I am told what to do, and they don’t do arguments.” – Bianca

“I haven’t had enough practice.” - Lisa

ConclusionsThe exposure students had to argumentative discourse

affected their initial understanding of argumentative discourse, and thus their attitudes about whether it should be included as a learning activity in the classroom.

The more experience pre-service teachers had with argument, the better the pre-service teachers understood argument, and the more they believed that they would be likely to use it in their own future classrooms.

The further removed from the experience with argumentative discourse, the more uncertain pre-service teachers became about their ability to successfully implement it in their future classes.

ImplicationsMultiple exposures to and involvement in

argumentative discourse should be created for pre-service teachers.

More information may need to be collected from in-service teachers about their understanding of, teaching strategies used with, and frequency of implementation of argumentative discourse in middle and high school classrooms.

Argumentative Discourse: Considerations in the Impact on Pre-Service Teachers’ Effective Implementation

Claim Warrants

Rebuttals

Counter Argume

nts

Argument Schema Theory, Reznitskaya, et al. 2001Socio-Cognitive Learning Theory, Bandura, 1988Apprenticeship of Observation, Lortie, 1975Graphic, Manya Chappell, 2013

Everything’s An ArgumentLunsford, Ruszkiewicz, and Walters (2009)

wrote a book entitled Everything’s an Argument.

While every lesson in a classroom cannot be an argument, our teachers may be able to engage our students much more by framing more content in an argument – the heart and soul of education(Alfassi, 2009; Schmoker, 2006).