Dialog as a Bridge to Argumentative Writing

“Argue With Me”: A Method for Developing Argument Skills

“…According to Toulmin (1958) , this kind of logical relation can be of two types: (a) an explanation of how what is claimed to be a support naturally links to the claim itself ( warrant in Toulminian terms) or (b) a justification of why this specific linkage between claim and support must be considered as evidence that the claim is true ( backing in Toulminian terms). Without establishing connections neither with the informal logic criteria nor with Toulmin’s theoretical contribution of a valid argument structure, Kuhn and colleagues seem to be claiming something very similar with their simplified notion of a functional unit: for a claim to be characterized as evidence-based, the connection between the alleged evidence and the claim must be explicit, and the evidence must be accurate (not “mischaracterized;” Shi et al, 2019 , p. 118), meaning that the original meaning and context of the information serving as evidence must not be altered, as in the case of falsification of information in social media fake news and stories. Moreover, the use of factual information as evidence must be done in a way that is logically acceptable, meaning not violating the standards of soundness and cohesion ( Blair and Johnson, 1987 ).…”

“…Addressing the question of what aspects of evidence-based reasoning and antilogos skills are promoted as result of the AWM curriculum, a common finding across the empirical studies reviewed is that, following participation, students more often search for and use evidence in their efforts primarily to support their own and undermine the other’s position, but also to a lesser extent to address evidence and arguments incongruent with their own position ( Kuhn et al, 2008 , 2016b ; Iordanou and Constantinou, 2015 ; Kuhn and Moore, 2015 ; Hemberger et al, 2017 ; Shi, 2019 ; Shi et al, 2019 ; Iordanou and Kuhn, 2020 ), and more efficiently ( Iordanou, 2010 , 2013 ; Crowell and Kuhn, 2014 ; Kuhn and Crowell, 2011 ; Iordanou and Constantinou, 2014 ; Papathomas and Kuhn, 2017 ; Matos, 2021 ). This behavioral, as contrasted to the epistemological (discussed below), increased facility with what counts as evidence and how it can serve one’s argumentive reasoning is a central benefit of the AWM curriculum.…”

“…Some of the reviewed studies used prompts for reflection or to encourage the use of evidence. Incorporating scaffold prompts that exemplified functions of evidence in relation to a claim accelerated the prevalence of evidence-based claims in essays of low-performing middle schoolers compared to participants in the same year-long dialogue-based intervention who received no or a limited form of evidence prompts ( Hemberger et al, 2017 ) or compared to participants who engaged in their regular school curriculum ( Shi et al, 2019 ). Iordanou et al (2019) gave particular attention to the specific types of prompts accompanying the use of questions and answers (Q&As) provided to students.…”

“…When it comes to writing, extensive research ( Crowell and Kuhn, 2014 ; Kuhn et al, 2016a ; Hemberger et al, 2017 ; Iordanou et al, 2019 ; Iordanou, in press ; Shi et al, 2019 ) involving implementation of the AWM curriculum has shown that dense engagement in oral argumentive interaction benefits the construction of two-sided texts. Such two-sidedness is also reflected in the formation of either a dual or the more advanced integrated perspective.…”

Disciplinary Literacy and the 4Es: Rigorous and Substantive Responses to Interdisciplinary Standards

“…NGSS supports argumentation beginning in kindergarten, but ELA standards have traditionally focused on fact/opinion in primary grades, persuasion in middle grades and finally argumentation in late high school (Lee, 2017). Argumentation is essentially a newly highlighted expectation for ELA, and although there is a growing body of literacy research in this area (Ghiso, 2015; Shi et al, 2019), experienced teachers like Danielle would benefit from professional development specifically focused on this genre. Danielle’s incorporation of literacy for science leaned most heavily on ELA standards.…”