Bolstering students’ written argumentation by refining an effective discourse intervention: negotiating the fine line between flexibility and fidelity

Firetto, Carla M.; Murphy, P. Karen; Greene, Jeffrey A.; Li, Mengyi; Wei, Liwei; Montalbano, Cristin; Hendrick, Brendan D.; Croninger, Rachel M. V.

doi:10.1007/s11251-018-9477-x

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Talking can build students’ confidence and help them develop an arsenal of words to draw from and put into their writing later. Talking prior to writing is like a dress rehearsal, a way to practice working with the language and ideas without having to commit (Firetto et al., ). After students have talked, they can move on to writing, which acts as a summative piece incorporating ideas that they came up with themselves as well as ideas they may have gathered from others through conversations.…”

Section: Four Principles To Design a Stwh Lessonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the Science Talk–Writing Heuristic to Build a New Era of Scientific Literacy

Chen

2019

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the major goals of science education is preparing students to be scientifically literate. Argumentation is a core practice to promote both scientific literacy and science learning. However, incorporating argumentation into science teaching can be challenging for both teachers and students. The author introduces the Science Talk–Writing Heuristic as a teaching approach that science teachers can use to integrate literacy practices and science learning in an argumentative environment.

show abstract

Section: Four Principles To Design a Stwh Lessonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the Science Talk–Writing Heuristic to Build a New Era of Scientific Literacy

Chen

2019

The Reading Teacher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, research also indicates that prolonged time itself does not guarantee that students will improve their written arguments (Kuhn et al, 2013). Rather, students need to be provided with regular argument practices (Osborne et al, 2004;Firetto et al, 2019).…”

Section: Oral and Written Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, to overcome these difficulties several studies have developed new approaches of oral argumentation, including small group or whole class discussions, to improve students' written arguments within longer time periods. These studies have found that students' written argumentation increased over time through interventions within oral argumentation (Hemberger et al, 2017;Murphy et al, 2018;Firetto et al, 2019;Shi et al, 2019). Studies suggest that students' talking and writing practices need to be embedded in argumentation so that they can develop their written and oral argument quality (Walker and Sampson, 2013;Chen et al, 2016).…”

Section: Oral and Written Argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining pre-service science teachers’ development and utilization of written and oral argument and representation resources in an argument-based inquiry environment

Yaman

Hand

2022

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the development and utilization of argument and representation resources in pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs’) written and oral arguments over two semesters in an argument-based inquiry environment of General Chemistry Laboratory I and II courses. The study employed a form of mixed methods research that is known as ‘data-transformation variant of convergent design’ which allows quantification of qualitative data. Data sources included PSTs’ 180 laboratory reports and 20 video recordings. A Friedman test and a Spearman-Brown correlation were conducted for statistical analysis. The results revealed that the quality of argument and representation were intertwined in both written and oral argumentation. While the PSTs’ quality of written argument and representation significantly increased from the first-time phase to the following time phases, in oral argumentation the quality remained stable after the second time phase. There was also a positive correlation amongst the PSTs’ quality of written and oral argument and representation. The PSTs’ representational competency increased over time and they connected more representations in written arguments. The results suggest that students should be provided with opportunities to engage in sustained talking, writing, and reading practices both publicly and privately in order to critique and construct arguments, develop representational competency, and integrate ideas.

show abstract

“…Over the last decade, the resulting QT discussion model has shown to be effective at improving students' comprehension and critical‐analytic thinking and reasoning both orally and in writing across a host of content areas and grades including elementary language arts (e.g., Murphy et al, 2017) and mathematics (e.g., Lloyd & Murphy, in press), high school chemistry and physics (e.g., Murphy et al, 2018), college English and ancient Chinese (e.g., Tzean, 2021), and undergraduate elementary mathematics teacher education (e.g., Lloyd & Murphy, in press). In addition to improving high‐level comprehension, QT has been shown to improve oral reading fluency in an array of diverse schools in the United States (e.g., Firetto et al, 2019) and in English language learning contexts including South Africa (e.g., Sefhedi et al, 2021), Taiwan (e.g., Chen & Lo, 2021), and Mainland China (Wei et al, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enacting Quality Talk Discussions About Text: From Knowing the Model to Navigating the Dynamics of Dialogic Classroom Culture

Murphy¹,

Croninger²,

Baszczewski³

et al. 2022

The Reading Teacher

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classroom discussions are regarded by both practitioners and researchers as an essential pedagogical practice for fostering students' high‐level comprehension of text yet cultivating a dialogic classroom culture conducive to supporting students' productive talk can be a delicate undertaking. In this article, using a series of transcripts from one teacher's classroom, we describe how Quality Talk (QT), a teacher‐facilitated discussion approach, can be implemented in ways that promote a shift from a teacher‐controlled to a student‐centered dialogic classroom culture. First, we overview the QT model with particular attention to the instructional framework and underlying principles of QT. We then describe some challenging dynamics that arise when dialogic classroom culture shifts as well as approaches for balancing these opposing forces to effectively support student learning. Finally, we provide some initial thoughts on next steps in classroom discussion practice and research and the importance of centering equity and inclusion in dialogic classroom culture.

show abstract

Bolstering students’ written argumentation by refining an effective discourse intervention: negotiating the fine line between flexibility and fidelity

Cited by 18 publications

References 61 publications

Using the Science Talk–Writing Heuristic to Build a New Era of Scientific Literacy

Using the Science Talk–Writing Heuristic to Build a New Era of Scientific Literacy

Examining pre-service science teachers’ development and utilization of written and oral argument and representation resources in an argument-based inquiry environment

Enacting Quality Talk Discussions About Text: From Knowing the Model to Navigating the Dynamics of Dialogic Classroom Culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About