A Dialogic Path to Evidence-Based Argumentive Writing

Hemberger, Laura; Kuhn, Deanna; Matos, Flora Albuquerque; Shi, Yundi

doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714

Cited by 58 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our dialogic method has been successful in enhancing students' argumentative writing (Hemberger, Kuhn, Matos, & Shi, 2017;Kuhn & Crowell, 2011;Kuhn, Hemberger, & Khait, 2016a) -widely regarded as a key educational objective and modality for display of critical thinking -as well as dialogic skills themselves (Crowell & Kuhn, 2014;Iordanou & Constantinou, 2015;Kuhn & Moore, 2015) and the disposition to use them (Kuhn & Zillmer, 2015). What accounts for its success, especially in the domain of argumentative writing, where students of all ages have long been reported to perform poorly (Newell, Beach, Smith, & VanDerHeide, 2011)?…”

Section: Evolution Of Argument In Discourse and Writing Over The Courmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the research we have engaged in to address this question, we have closely examined students' peer dialogues, their argumentative essays, and the relations between them. We looked first at changes in their essays on successive topics over the course of one or more years of dialogic engagement with a succession of topics (Hemberger et al, 2017;Kuhn et al, 2016a). At first essays consisted largely of supporting arguments for the chosen position on the topic.…”

Section: Evolution Of Argument In Discourse and Writing Over The Courmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Essay writing arguably elicits a particular school-related frame -students take the task as one of integrating the material at hand into a sequence of statements seeming to support a claim, avoiding mention of anything that might suggest otherwise. We have examined in greater detail how participants' discourse makes its way into culminating essays (Hemberger et al, 2017). Progress over time appeared in both domains, but progress in the dialogic context typically preceded progress in the individual writing context.…”

Section: Evolution Of Argument In Discourse and Writing Over The Courmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Critical Thinking as Discourse

Kuhn¹

2019

Human Development

Self Cite

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Less than it is an individual ability or skill, critical thinking is a dialogic practice people engage in and commit to, initially interactively and then in interiorized form with the other only implicit. An argument depends for its meaning on how others respond. In advancing arguments, well-practiced thinkers anticipate their defeasibility as a consequence of others’ objections, in addition to envisioning their own potential rebuttals. Whether in external or interiorized form, the dialogic process creates something new, while itself undergoing development. This perspective may be useful in sharpening the definition of the construct of critical thinking and in so doing help to bring together the largely separate strands of work examining it as a theoretical construct, a measurable skill, and an educational objective. Implications for education follow. How might critical thinking as a shared practice be engaged within educational settings in ways that will best support its development? One step is to privilege frequent practice of direct peer-to-peer discourse. A second is to take advantage of the leveraging power of dialogue as a bridge to individual argument – one affording students’ argumentative writing a well-envisioned audience and purpose. Illustrations of this bridging power are presented. Finally, implications for assessment of critical thinking are noted and a case made for the value of commitment to a high standard of critical thinking as a shared and interactive practice.

show abstract

Section: Evolution Of Argument In Discourse and Writing Over The Courmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evolution Of Argument In Discourse and Writing Over The Courmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evolution Of Argument In Discourse and Writing Over The Courmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical Thinking as Discourse

Kuhn¹

2019

Human Development

Self Cite

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These limitations can be seen even in many commendable learning environments designed to promote and assess inquiry abilities. In an environment designed to promote evidence-based argumentative writing, Hemberger, Kuhn, Matos, and Shi (2017) treated as evidence simple statements such as "An estimated 17 million Americans try to quit smoking each year, and about 8% of them succeed" (p. 587). In their seminal work on disciplinary engagement, Engle and Conant (2002) viewed as evidence textual statements such as "eagle nests weigh as much as 2 tons" (p. 435).…”

Section: Urre Nt Co Nce P Tual Iz Ati On S Of Evi De Nce I N S C mentioning

confidence: 99%

Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and expanding the next generation science standards’ conceptualization of evidence

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practices of generating, analyzing, and using evidence play a central role in the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the NGSS. However, the construct of evidence remains largely underspecified in these documents, providing insufficient guidance on how to engage students with the broad and complex nature of evidentiary reasoning. This creates a risk of perfunctory and simplified implementation of evidence-based practices that misses the intent of the standards and does little to prepare students for reasoning with the complex, varied, and contentious evidence encountered in popular media or in advanced education. To address these challenges, we propose a theoretical framework, which we call Grasp of Evidence, that complexifies the concept of evidence in ways that facilitate introducing more authentic forms of evidence and more sophisticated ways of engaging with evidence in science classrooms. Our approach focuses on promoting a lay grasp of evidence needed by competent outsiders as they engage with science in their everyday lives. The framework posits five dimensions. The first four dimensions capture what students should understand about how experts work with evidence: evidence analysis, evidence evaluation, evidence interpretation, and evidence integration. The fifth dimension focuses on how laypeople can use evidence reports themselves. Each of these dimensions of practice involves specific epistemic aims, epistemic ideals, and reliable epistemic processes for reasoning with and about evidence. We discuss these dimensions and their contribution to the conceptualization of evidence as well as provide some initial instructional implications and potential directions for future research. K E Y W O R D S critical thinking, epistemology, inquiry, science education J Res Sci Teach. 2018;1-31.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea

show abstract

“…Much like written scaffolds, verbal instruction from a teacher or peer can support aspects of students’ writing, such as evidence use in arguments (Hemberger, Kuhn, Matos, & Shi, ), and for English learners, the development of content knowledge and related vocabulary (Linares, ). For English learners specifically, teacher moves such as modeling target language forms and validating correct language use have been identified as effective scaffolding tactics (Gilliland, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffolding Students’ Writing Processes Through Dialogic Assessment

Beck¹,

Jones²,

Storm³

et al. 2020

J Adolescent & Adult Lit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you are seeking a better way to give feedback to student writers, dialogic writing assessment may be for you. E ducation leaders are showing new interest in personalized learning and assessment (Barnum, 2018). For teachers of literacy, this shift is an opportunity to consider formative writing assessment practices anew. In this article, we explore the potential of dialogic writing assessment (Beck, 2018) to provide such opportunities through individualized scaffolding of students' writing processes. Dialogic writing assessment is an approach to conducting writing conferences that unites conversation with what is traditionally known as thinking aloud. It foregrounds students' composing processes to reveal and address the obstacles that interfere with those processes: The teacher encourages students to verbalize their composing processes and then attempts to support those processes with prompts and questions. These prompts and questions, along with written materials that the teacher offers during the session, act as scaffolds for students' writing processes.Scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) of literacy processes can enhance students' capacity for meaning making (e.g., Hinchman & Chandler-Olcott, 2017). In this article, we present portraits of several teachers' practice to illustrate how skilled interplay between assessment and instruction based on close observation of student writing processes is involved in achieving this goal. Rather than proposing one best way of practicing scaffolding in dialogic writing assessment, we offer multiple examples of practice that we consider noteworthy for demonstrating close alignment between assessment and instruction. We also explore how this scaffolding can be "contextualized…in light of the value systems" (Smagorinsky, 2018b, p. 255) that shape teachers' practice, tracing the ways in which their scaffolding decisions are personally and institutionally specific. We hope that by highlighting the essential role of teacher judgment in matching instruction with learner needs, this depiction will serve as a gentle challenge to one-size-fits-all models of effective writing instruction.We describe the background and contexts of the participating teachers, summarize the design of the study, and offer descriptive portraits of the teachers' work with students. These portraits are designed to answer two research questions:1. How did variation in three teachers' support for students' composing processes in dialogic writing assessment show responsiveness to the students' individual needs?2. How did the teachers' support reflect their goals for writing and their institutional contexts?

show abstract

A Dialogic Path to Evidence-Based Argumentive Writing

Cited by 58 publications

References 31 publications

Critical Thinking as Discourse

Critical Thinking as Discourse

Grasp of evidence: Problematizing and expanding the next generation science standards’ conceptualization of evidence

Scaffolding Students’ Writing Processes Through Dialogic Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About