Conceptualizing Dialogic Literary Argumentation: Inviting Students to Take a Turn in Important Conversations

Abstract

Although authors often create literary texts in order to comment on issues of personhood and human relationships, reading and writing about literary texts in schools is often focused on close analysis of literary elements or exploration of one’s own experience with the text. Thus, students’ written arguments about literature typically do little work in the world toward understanding the human condition. In response, we argue for a theoretical and instructional framework of reading and writing about literature called Dialogic Literary Argumentation. Dialogic literary argumentation asks students and teachers to engage in reading, dialogue, and argumentative writing about how they and others make meaning out of literary texts, what the meaning says about what it means to be human together, and how we might act in and on the worlds in which we live. In this article, we explicate the various elements of this theoretical framework that situates the student’s literary argument within their own cognitive processes, social interactions in classroom events, and broader sociocultural contexts. Students’ composed arguments draw on multiple texts (the literary text, others in and beyond the classroom, their own experiences, the literary discipline, and the world), which are mediated by various classroom dialogues, scaffolds, and supports.

Perspectives about Disciplinary Argumentation in the Era of Post-truth: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…VanDerHeide et al (2023) argue that the CCSS (2010) privileges justificatory arguments that are supported by reliable and valid evidence. Consequently, the CCSS narrows the scope of written argument to a process that involves the final analysis and synthesis of texts and ideas.…”

“…Analyses of the rhetorical and linguistic features of essays written by EL students showed that Pathway participants wrote better-organized essays that included clearer claims, more evidence, and improved language use. VanDerHeide et al (2023) argue that the CCSS (2010) privileges justificatory arguments that are supported by reliable and valid evidence. Consequently, the CCSS narrows the scope of written argument to a process that involves the final analysis and synthesis of texts and ideas.…”

“…Students are expected to develop the advanced literacy skills needed to read, write, and make and evaluate interpretative claims by using disciplinary strategies and standards when reading and writing. These factors have given impetus to interventions that improve students’ written disciplinary arguments (Alexander et al, 2023; Booth Olson et al, 2023; De La Paz et al, 2023; Nokes & De La Paz, 2023; VanDerHeide, et al, 2023).…”

“…Long before children have the capacity to write argumentative essays, they demonstrate surprisingly deft argumentative capacities when engaged in cooperative problem solving with their peers (Köymen & Tomasello, 2020; Köymen et al, 2020). Well-designed instruction that supports collaborative dialogic interactions about controversial issues has been shown to improve students’ argumentative writing (Alexander et al, 2023; De La Paz et al, 2023; Newell et al, 2011; Nokes & De La Paz, 2023; VanDerHeide et al, 2023). However, many novice writers, including students with disabilities (De La Paz, et al, 2023) and students with limited English proficiency (Booth Olson et al, 2023), are challenged to regulate the demands of goal setting, planning, writing, and revising their essays (Graham et al, 2013).…”

“…Explicit strategy instruction that supports students’ self-regulated problem solving during the writing process is demonstrably effective in improving their argumentative writing (Booth Olson et al, 2023; Harris, 2021; Harris & Graham, 2016). Other forms of instruction that may include dialogic or self-regulatory supports have been successful in teaching students the epistemic skills needed to write disciplinary arguments (De La Paz et al, 2023; Nokes & De La Paz, 2023; VanDerHeide et al, 2023).…”