Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

Author(s): George E. Newell, Richard Beach, Jamie Smith, Jennifer VanDerHeide, Deanna
Kuhn and Jerry Andriessen
Source: Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3 (July/August/September 2011), pp. 273304
Published by: International Reading Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41228654 .
Accessed: 24/05/2013 23:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

International Reading Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Reading Research Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Teaching and Learning

ArgumentativeReading and Writing:
A Review of Research
George E. Newell
The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA

RichardBeach
Universityof Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

VanDerHeide
JamieSmith,Jennifer
USA
The Ohio State University,
Consulting Editors:
New York,USA
Kuhn, TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity,
The Netherlands
JerryAndriessen, UtrechtUniversity,
Deanna

Acquiringargumentativereadingand writingpractices reflectsa key component of recentcurricularreformsin schools

and universities
throughoutthe UnitedStatesand the world as well as a majorchallenge to teachersof readingand writing
in -2 and college writingclassrooms. In thisreview,we consider the contributionsof two researchperspectives,cognitive and social, thatresearchershave employed in the studyof the teaching and learningof argumentativereadingand
writing.We address two basic questions: How do these perspectiveswiththeirown disciplinaryframeworksand logics of
informhow researchersstudyargumentativereadingand writing,and consequently,how have these
inquiryinteractively
orientationsinformedpedagogical knowledge that may support teachers' understandingof what argumentationis and
how itmay be takenup in the educational contexts?We analyze relevantconceptual and empiricalstudiesby considering
assumptionsunderlyingthe cognitiveand social disciplinaryperspectives,especially in termsof the warrantsthatthose
perspectivesassume. We also interrogatehow these perspectives' logics of inquiryreveal assumptionsabout the transfer
of learningas supported by instructionand otherpractices,such as classroom discussion, computer-supportedcollaborations,and otherformsof instructionalsupport. Using empirical studies of the teaching and learningof argumentative
readingand writingconducted in grades -2 and college writingclassrooms,we delineate the assumptionsthatdrivethe
two perspectivesand theirinstructionalconsequences, arguingthatresearchersand teachers need an understandingof
to establisha clear and coherent relationshipbetween theoryand practheirassumptionsabout knowledge and transfer
tice. We offera vision forresearchthatintegratesthe cognitiveand social perspectivesto argue thatthe work of literacy
researchis to reveal cognitiveprocesses and instructionalpracticesthatteachers can promoteand studentscan employ
forlearninghow to do argumentativereadingand writing.

argumentative1
readingand writing
andpractices
a keycompostrategies
represents
inschoolsand
nentofrecent
curricular
reforms
Acquiring
universities
theUnitedStatesandtheworld.
throughout

areoftenbasedon efforts
toengagestuThesereforms
anddiscusdentsindebatesthatechothecontroversies
theworkplace,
sionsintheirdailylives,popularculture,
and academicdisciplines(Andrews,
2010;
professions,

2011 International
ReadingAssociation
ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3) pp. 273-304 dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

273

Andriessen,
Baker,& Suthers,2003;Applebee,1996; Because each perspectivehas itsown wide rangeof
anditsdistinctive
Graff,
2003;Street,
2004;vanEemeren,Grootendorst, waysofdefining
argumentation
logics
& Henkemans,
one
of
the
more
dramatic
of
the
result
is
often
confusion
and sometimes
2002).Perhaps
inquiry,
ofargumentationconflict,
as literacy
researchers
withtheirpredilections
examplesofthegrowing
significance
is theemphasisof argumentative
readingand writ- forparticularlogicsofinquiryare inclinedto ignore
thatareunfamiliar
to them(cf.
ingin theCommonCoreStateStandardsforEnglish researchperspectives
languageartsforgrades6-12in U.S. schools(Council Green,Camilli,& Elmore,2006;Shulman,1997).In
ofChiefStateSchoolOfficers& NationalGovernors thisreview,
weurgethatthestudyofargumentation
in
Association,
schoolsettings
needstobe fullyandhonestly
multidis2010).
thecaseforthevalueofallstudents
to ciplinary,
Nevertheless,
researchers
tolearnfromeachofthe
allowing
andengagein oralargument
is notalways perspectives.
read,write,
Ifresearchers
acceptthisview,theywill
teachers
easytomake.On theonehand,although
resultsas interesting
may takeconflicting
situations
to extheimportance
ofargumentative
recognize
readingand aminemorecarefully,
rather
thanseektodismissthem
as central
to acquiring
academicliteracies,
writing
they as methodological
artifacts.
areoftenleeryofintroducing
whatmayevolveintoconOur secondgoal is to bringto bear an integrated
flictandone-upmanship
inthemedia,thatis, notionof
employed
to developa coherent
and roargumentation
ofcompetitive,
combative
debate bustapproachto researchthatinforms
argument
consisting
theteaching
& Johnson,
(Johnson
2009)thatleadstoan "adversarial and learningofargumentative
in
readingand writing
frameofmind"(Tannen,1999,p. 4). In addition,
given educational
contexts.
This goalpositionsus primarily
their
inthemedia,students as educationalresearchers,
witharguments
experiences
thatis,as peopledoingrein
then
assume
that
claims,theysim- searchineducation
may
formulating
forthesakeofteaching
andlearning
theirclaimsto achievethegoal in educational
plyneedto summarize
In
our
studies
of
settings.
argumentaofconvincing
audienceswithout
providing
supporting tion,forexample,weareparticularly
inwhat
interested
orchanging BallandForzani
evidence,
considering
counterarguments,
described
as
the
"instructional
(2007)
theirownorothers'stanceson an issue.On theother
dynamic":
theunderlying
hand,theabilityto identify
argument,
Educationis inherently
and itsclaims,warrants,
and evidence,in readingand
an orientation
to
transactional;
the
inside
instances
of
education
is
what
theability
tocomposea high-quality
and
its
probing processes
argument,
makeseducation
research
ineducation
and evidence,in writing
arecritical
special.. ..Research
claims,warrants,
about
the
instructional
at
investigates
questions
dynamic
skillsforacademicsuccess(Graff,
2003;Hillocks,2010,
in
related
to
and
the
formal
play
problems
directly
schooling
2011;Kuhn,2005).
educational
atvariousgrain
process.Ittreatsinstruction,
ineducational
sizes,as thekeyvariable
problems,
(p. 532)

Conceptualizing the Review

Althoughwe recognizethatliteracyresearchers,
ina rangeofcontexts,
areinterested
conceived,
broadly
Goals for This Review
forourpurposes,we areprimarily
infosterinterested
Becausewe believein theimportance
ofstudentsac- inglearning
toargueandarguing
tolearnineducational
weuse this contexts.
The taskthatwehavebeforeus is toenvision
quiringargumentative
readingandwriting,
criticalreviewto makethecase formoreresearchon thekindsofclassroomswherestudentsareinterested
andlearning
teachandinreadingandwriting
teaching
argumentative
readingandwrit- inwhatteachers
arguthat
a
of
research
for mentsthatareofsignificance
to themandtheculture
ing
integratesrange
perspectives
howand whyto conductstudiesofthisimportant
as- atlarge.We thinkthatstudiesfromboththecognitive
of
academic
pect
learning.
andsocialperspectives
cancontribute
tosucha vision.
In spiteofitssignificance
bothinandoutofschool,
at present,
remainspoorlydefinedor
argumentation
defined
perhapsoverly
byspecificsetsofassumptions Defining Argumentative
relatedto research,
theoretical
work,andteachingand Reading and Writing
&
readingand writlearning(Bereiter Scardamalia,2006;Berrill,1996; How mightwe defineargumentative
critical
of
studiesof
Coirier& Andriessen,2000;Fulkerson,1996).In an ingthatpermits
analysis empirical
as wellas integration
ofresearch
thestudyofteachingand learning teachingandlearning
effort
to reimagine
Bothteaching
andresearch
oftenrelysinineducational
con- perspectives?
argumentative
readingandwriting
on
textual
or
this
review
takes
structural
two
The
first
is
the
texts,
gularly
assumptions
up
goals.
grounded
construction
ofa conceptofargumentation
ofToulmin's(1958/2003)
thatper- in a particular
interpretation
mitsintegration
oftwodominant
research
bothinvolve
perspectives model:Argumentative
readingandwriting
forthestudyofargumentation:
and
social.
identification
of
a
thesis
a
called
cognitive
(also
claim),supportive
274

Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and assessment
of argumentative
formsand uses (Lunsford,
orexperiential),
evidence(empirical
2002),such
towhatthe
as
Toulmins
and
situation
warrants
the
model,
thesis,
evidence,
(1958/2003)
according
connecting
on
of
ideas
writer
intends
for
the
In
atcontrast
to
an
composed
expression
simply
constituting argument.2
who
asfor
audiences
occasions
believe
or
do
somesomeone
to
to
specific
may
specific
tempting persuade
involvesmaking sumespecificconventions
-basedargumentation
2002).
(Evensen,
thing,evidence
a claimsupported
byreasonsorevidencefrommultiple
totheclaimina principled
sourcesthatconnects
way. Search Methods
is ef- In this
viewofargument
This structural/formalist
article,we reviewempiricalstudiesofteachsuch
as
in
fective foregrounding
argument ingand learning
patterns
in
readingandwriting
argumentative
& Anderson,2002)and social
schemata(Reznitskaya
andin
K-12inEnglishlanguageartsclassrooms
grades
2002;Prior,
2005).Yet,sucha view, college-level
(Lunsford,
practices
contexts
publishedbetween1985
alsohas and 2011. writing
whenitexcludesotherperspectives,
especially
research
therehas been extensive
Although
in thatit oftenassumesa conduitmeta- on
constraints
in
to learnacrossall subjects,particularly
arguing
notionsofargumentationscience
phor(Prior,1998).Structural
2008; see
(Erduran& Jimnez-Aleixandre,
foranalyzingthecomarenecessarybutinsufficient
ourreview
2010,fora reviewof54 studies),
Cavagnetto,
social
plexargumentative practicesin specificliteracy focuseson learningto arguein kindergarten
through
we groundourviewof
events.As literacy
researchers,
and
arts,
writing
reading,
collegeEnglishlanguage
in languageused
readingand writing
argumentative
forthederesponsible
subjectareasthatareprimarily
events(Barton,2007).
orliteracy
inrhetorical
contexts
arskillsandpractices,
ofliteracy
including
velopment
of
the
ofargumentadiscussions
Therefore,
difficulty
and
1981,
1984;
(Applebee,
reading writing
gumentative
as a set Hillocks,1999,2007;
needtotreatargument
tivereadingandwriting
Langer& Applebee,1987).
witha variety
ofuses acrossa range
ofsocialpractices
in oursearchforrelevant
We triedto be thorough
events.
ofdifferent
literacy
and to
forsearching,
define
rules
to
research,
explicit
twodiffer- definerulesforwhatwouldbe involvedor excluded
Givenourgoalofthisreviewofapplying
andthesocial, from
thecognitive
entresearch
perspectives,
includedonlyresearch
We therefore
theliterature.
andlearning
ofargumentativethat
toexaminehowteaching
intoa largervican be integrated
readingand writing
Primarilyincludedargumentative
readingand
webelievethatHalliday's(1970,1994)
sionofresearch,
writingproduced by school-age studentsin
a usefultoolfor
orusesoflanguageoffer
metafunctions
andcolclassrooms
Englishlanguagearts/reading
rather
To clarify,
ofa unifiedtheory.
thedevelopment
classrooms
legewriting
functional
thanadoptingHalliday'ssystemic
linguis Occurredin K-12 Englishlanguagearts/readthatalserveonlyas a heuristic
tics,themetafunctions
in ourreviewofargumentative
lowsus to be inclusive
ing and collegewritingclassroomsin Englishcountries
is
to
and
Our
speaking
reading writing. approach argumentation

of
the
in
ideational,
a shiftto
Was publishedbetween1985,marking
grounded Halliday'scategories (1)
and (3) thetextual.The firstreinliteracy
and2011
(2) theinterpersonal,
research,
multiple
perspectives
fersto howlanguageis used to organize,understand,
andthelogicofideas;the We beganbyreviewing
andexpressbothexperiences
studiespublishedin refereed
to journalspublishedbetween1985and 2011thatfocus
secondrefers
to howlanguageallowsparticipants
ofemotions specifically
takeonrolesandexpressanunderstanding
text
on readingand writing
argumentative
to argueanddiscussina rangeofliteracy definedas a typeofcriticalthinkingand rhetorical
andattitudes
to howlanguageorganizes production
ofa thesis(also
theidentification
events;andthethirdrefers
involving
to an calleda claim),supportive
wantsto communicate
whatthespeaker/writer
orexpeevidence(empirical
audience.
the
warrants
that
connect
of
and
assessment
riential),
that
it
will
become
this
which
the
within
and
situation
review,
evidence,
thesis,
apparent
Through
arguofar- mentis beingmade.
onemetafunction
eachperspective
tendstofavor
studlistedin
witha handsearchofreferences
gumentovertheother.Forexample,in cognitive
Beginning
and relevant
is oftendescribedas "a rhetorical
reviewsofresearchusingthetermsargumenies,argument
& Anderson,2002,p. 321) tativewriting,
reading,
Englishlanguage
argumentative
logicalform"(Reznitskaya
we identified
& Butler, arts,reading,and collegewriting,
scheme(Wolfe,Britt,
oras an argumentation
jourand reading(e.g.,
2009)appliedas an evaluationtool (Yeh,1998)lead- nalsthatpublishresearchin writing
Researchin theTeaching
models ReadingResearchQuarterly,
ofcognitive-processing
ingto theformulation
as wellas journals
Written
and
in argumentative
forguidinginstruction
Communication)
ofEnglish,
reading
on
a
wider
research
that
a
social
research
from
arrayoftopics(e.g.,
publish
perspective
writing.
Conversely,
SchoolJournal).
The Elementary
tendsto assumethatteachersand studentsnegotiate DiscourseProcesses,

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

275

In our review,we adopta diaWe thenconductedmanualshelfand onlinesearches readingand writing.

data-based
to
frameworks
ofa
ofalljournalsthatpublisharticles
reporting
logicapproach explorealternative
and
Given
and
a
social
on
on argumentative
research
reading writing.
cognitive
perspective
perspective arstudiesofargu- gumentation
limitednumberofempirical
to considerusefulcontributions
ofboth
therather
in
arts/
well
mentative
and
frameworks
as
as
tensions
between
the
two.
We
reading writing Englishlanguage
in
classrooms
we
and
therefore
the
stance
as
must
that, reviewers,
published
adopted
reading collegewriting
refereed
thatis, as
journals,we adopteda generousviewofwhat engagein ourowncollaborative
argument,
an empirical
constituted
ofargument:
work,andsomeofthestudies a dialogueto enhancetheunderstanding
information
includedonlycursory
aboutmethodology. "Peopletalkwitheachother,
listentoeachother,
argue
We also expandedoursearchto includestudiesthat witheach other,and mutuallydecidewhether
a diaineditedscholarly
werepublished
books.
of
logueis possibleand,ifitis,howfartheusefulness
ourstanceregarding thatdialogueextendsforeachinterlocutor"
We alsowanttomakeexplicit
(Bloome,
variousand sometimes
researchperspec- Carter,
Christian,
Otto,& Shuart-Faris,
2005,p. 206).
competing
tivesshapingresearchmethodsand analysisforthe
ofargumentative
readstudyofteachingand learning
in Teaching
and
As
and Challenges
scholars,
researchers,
ing
writing. literacy
and Writing
ourworkis primarily
framed
teachers,
bysociocultural ArgumentativeReading
discussions
of
argumentative
readingand
theories
ofreadingandwriting
thatshare Refocusing
psychological
as
collaborative
social
moves
practices
beyond
theassumption
thattounderstand
howpeopletakeup writing
traditional
of
the
conceptions
teaching
persuasive
essay
in
their
own
andmakesenseofliteracy
lives,
practices
argumentative
essayto what
researchers
mustseektounderstand
howculturally
and ortheposition/support
to as "highliteracy,"
thatis,not
situatedmeaningsareconstructed,
recon- Langer(2002)referred
historically
basic
but
a
theways
of
just
literacy
"deeper
knowledge
and transformed
structed,
throughsocial mediation
in
which
and
content
work
reading,
writing,
language,
1978;Wertsch,1998).Froma literacy
prac(Vygotsky,
In
a
recent
and
3).
together"
(p.
report,
Applebee
Langer
weperceiveargumentation
as a social
ticeperspective,
on the
writing
performance
thatagents(i.e.,speakers,
take (2006)examinedstudents'
writers,
readers)
practice
National
Assessment
of
Educational
Progress(NAEP)
suchas classrooms,usingthe
up in activity
settings,
to ourreview
tools(e.g.,speech,written from1998to 2002.Perhapsmostrelevant
mediatedmeansofsemiotic
is
a
concern
that
and
Applebee
Langerexpressedreandthatagentsandmediagrams,
drawings)
language,
the
of
that
diationalmeansformthebasicunitofanalysisforun- garding types writing teachersassigned,as
Daane,andJin(2003):
byPersky,
thegenesisofpsychological
development. reported
derstanding
thatknowledge
Despitethewidelyheldassumption
over40%ofthestudents
atGrade8 anda thirdatGrade12
andmeaningmakingexistonlyinthemindortheexorinterpretation
at
report
writing
essaysrequiring
analysis
theseprocessesas social
ternalworld,we understand
mosta fewtimesa year.Thisis problematic
sinceitis this
inthe
and also negotiated
as socialpractices,
thatis neededforadvanced
resulting
typeofmorecomplexwriting
academicsuccessinhighschoolas wellas collegecourseinparticular
usesofargumentative
readingandwriting
work.(Applebee
andLanger,
2006,p. 8)
events(Barton,2007).Ratherthanperceiving
literacy
theargumentative
processesofgoal formucognitive
As a result,
recentstudiesofstudents'
lationand elaboration
orschemaapplication
as in the
writing
perreveal
thatonlya fraction
ofstudents(i.e.,
individual
mind,Smagorinsky
(2011)notedthata socio- formance
cultural
defines
thesecognitive
processesas 3% ofeighthgraders,6% of 12thgraders)can make
perspective
critical
aboutwritten
text(Perie,
informed,
judgments
toolsthattiecognition
mediated
tothesetting
of
bycultural
& Donahue,2005).Only15%of12th-grade
stuGrigg,
is situated
insettings
andis insepara- dents
mentation;
thinking
at theproficient
levelwereable to
performing
blefrom
theparticular
tasks,
addressees,
purposes,
genres write
essaysin whichtheytookclear
well-organized
ofactivity,
and otherfactorsofcommunicative
imporand
supportedthosepositions,
positions
consistently
in relation
tance....
whenI studycognition
to writing
and
transitions
to
lead
the
readerfromonepartofthe
using
I needtosituate
other
forms
ofcomposition,
thatthinking
(Perieetal, 2005).Moreover,
within
communities
ofpractice
thatmight
be disciplinary, essaytoanother
giventhe
inneed
to
and
in
and
otherwise
and
medireading writing
integrate
argumentative
community-based,
originating
in
one
is
atedbyspecific
forms
ofcultural
struction,
406-407)
practice,
(pp.
majorchallenge teachingargument
thatstudents
advanced
readhavedifficulty
mastering
ourperspective
insome- ingcomprehension
and criticalliteracyskillsin core
Suchassumptions
position
timesoverlapping,
sometimes
parallel,or sometimes disciplinesassociatedwithengagingin and critiquing
exclusive
withthelogicsofin- effective
and
mutually
relationships
arguments,
especiallyin science,history,
in
used
researchers
the
of
literature
&
Council
(Biancarosa Snow,2004;Carnegie
quiry
by
study argumentative
276

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

inpreparation
on AdvancingAdolescentLiteracy,2010;Rampey, thefive-paragraph
forstanessayformat
tests(Hillocks,2002).Formulating
Dion,& Donahue,2009).Studentsalso havedifficulty dardizedwriting
textstructures arguments
andapplying
abouttextsrequiresnotonlytheabilityto
argumentative
recognizing
Freedman
&
evi&
sufficient
and
(Chambliss Murphy,2002;
Pringle, identify providerelevant,
supporting
and
offerevidence
to
make
from
a
text
but
also
the
dence
1984),generating
(Kuhn, 1991),
explicit
ability
and rebuttals thewarrants
or assumptions
reasons,counterarguments,
linkingthethesisto the
ingrelevant
onlivedworldandlitreasonsandevidencebydrawing
(McCann,1989).
inreading eraryknowledge
difficulties
forstudents'
One explanation
Kahn,& Walter,
2009),
(Johannessen,
is thatteachingargumentation something
andwriting
inreading
formanystudents
thatis difficult
arguments
is complexand demanding.First,unlikeothertypes andwriting
etal, 2003).
texts(Persky
involvesa
ofreadingandwriting
tasks,argumentation
However,studentsmaynotacquiresuchliteracy
with practiceswhentheirtextbooksoftenfavornarrative
setofgenrepractices
moresophisticated
compared
inthata rangeofgenres(e.g., andexplanatory
narration
andexposition
ones(Calfee
textsoverargumentative
This
formalist
&
sermons,
letters,
testimonials)
Chambliss,
reports,
essays,
speeches,
1987).
readinginstruction
the
formalist
as arguments,
can function
to
also
limit
students'
challenging
analyzearability critically
may
notionthatthereis a singleargumentative
on
In
her
research
12th
texts.
essaygenre gumentative
graders'apform(Freedman,
Chambliss
ofargumentative
1996).Thus,teachers
maynotalways plication
macroprocesses,
arere- (1995)foundthatwhengivena textwithnoclaim,these
knowwhatcontentand proceduralknowledge
a claimbasedonthe
wereabletoinfer
readingand writ- olderteenreaders
quiredforlearningargumentative
is
there
claimswereless
theirinferred
widespread datainthetext,although
ing(Hillocks,1999,2010).Second,
thatschoolteachersoftentryto maintaina accurate
when
thanclaimsinthetext.In another
agreement
study,
zone whenitcomesto learning(Powell, fourth
conflict-free
wereaskedtorespondtoan arandfifth
graders
thepeace gumentative
& Cohen,1985),suchthat
thegistofit,butmost
Farrar,
maintaining
text,theycouldinfer
and werenotableto applyan argumentative
takesprecedenceoverfostering
for
structure
disagreements
thatmayarisewhen representing
otherpossiblesourcesofconflict
ofthetext(Chambliss
theirunderstanding
& Murphy,
readingandwriting.
teaching
argumentative
2002).
Anotherchallengerelatesto students'conflicted
Teachersmay also have difficulty
articulating
ofthepurposesand audiencesforformu- rulesofevidencethatgovernhigh-quality
perceptions
argumenin a classroomsetting(Durst,1999; tativereadingand writing
latingarguments
(Kuhn,2005;Langer,1992;
Graff,2003; Kuhn, 2005). In thatsetting,although Langer& Applebee,1987).Fundamental
conceptssuch
studentsmaybe askedto convincepeersor outside as causality
forclaims,
evidenceorwarrants
andproof,
also assumptions
oftheirclaims,students
audiencesofthevalidity
andpremthatcan be takenforgranted,
theiractualprimaryaudienceis isesthatmustbe madeexplicitand defended
knowthattypically
lie atthe
whoneedsto be convincedofthevalid- heartofeffective
theirteacher,
Studiesofschoolwritargumentation.
are ingandreadinghavedocumented
thatteachersareofityoftheirclaims,especiallyiftheirperformances
evaluated(Applebee,1981,1984).In theUnitedStates, tenunawareoftheseconceptsand thusdo notknow
Melzer's(2009)nationalsurveyof2,000collegewrit- howto provideinstructional
such
supportforlearning
foundthatonly17%involvedwriting concepts(Applebee,1991;Hillocks,1999,2007,2010;
ingassignments
forargumentative
purposesforaudiencesotherthan Langer,1992;Langer& Applebee,1987;Shanahan&
theteacher.
Withtheteacheras theprimary
audience, Shanahan,2008).One responseto theseconcernsis
as simply Kuhn's(2005)
students
writing
mayperceiveargumentative
onthedevelopment
ofresearch
program
to of
ratherthanattempting
an assignment
completing
a
toconstruct
inwhichsheattempted
argumentation,
or
ideas.
Students
beliefs
actual
audiences'
other
change
roadmapoftheskillsthatneedtodevelop.. ..
"cognitive
toen- teachersneed sucha
fordemonstrating
theirability
arethenevaluated
roadmapiftheyareto planand
thepotential
withoutexperiencing
gagein argument
and assessitssuccess"
instruction
effective
implement
oftheirarguments
consequencesoftheeffectiveness
(pp. 116-117).
fromactualaudiencesbeyondtheir
basedon feedback
feedback(Berland& Reiser,2009).Moreover,
teacher's
toadoptstancesthattheybe- Toward an Interactive Theory of
students
maybe reluctant
lievetheirteacher
ArgumentativeReading and Writing
maynotendorse(Beck,2006).
webeformal- To meetsomeoftheseinstructional
Another
challenges,
challengehas to do witha largely
and
instruction lievethatthestudyofargumentative
ofmuchreadingandwriting
istorientation
reading writan
interactive
thatemphasizes,forexample,learningto makemain ingin schoolsettings
theory(cf.
requires
as
of
the
that
combines
in
narrative
texts
or
about
inferences
Flower,
1989)
study argument
expository
point
of
social
a
set
as
with
tests
or
for
standardized
practices.
argument
learning cognition
reading
preparation

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

277

research
assumescompeting
theneed formorebalanced,multiCurrently,
literacy
images argueforis, first,
ofargumentation
thatreflect
a cognitive/social
andmorerigorously
practic- perspective
descriptions
grounded
thatlimitsunderstanding
andthreatens theoretical
es polarization
explanationsofvariousaspectsofteachto dividethestudyofargumentative
readingandwrit- ingand learningargumentative
readingand writing.
with
of
between
and
these
to
Second,
ing
increasing
degrees separation
attempts buildintegrated,
theory-conThisparadigmatic
dividesuggests
the sciousaccountsofreadingandwriting
need,webelieve,
amongtheories.
needtounderstand
morefullyhowcognitive
ofcognitionand
processes to addresstheapparentdichotomy
and socialpracticesdo in factinteract
in specificbut socialpracticesin a directwayand in a spiritofopen
situations.
Howdo thesedifferent
Itwouldbe simpletoframetheissuesinterms
significant
processes inquiry.
andpractices
feedon one another?
Our intention
here ofa conflict,
as muchofthecurrent
discussion
tendsto
is nottoproposea specifictheory
butto exploresome do. This reviewis organizedaroundan effort
to look
withinandthenbetweenthecognitive
waysthatresearchand, by extension,teachingand first
perspective
fromconsidering
howresearch
in and thesocialpracticesperspective
to askhowteachlearning
maybenefit
schoolsettings
can createa well-supported,
theoreti- ingmight
thequalityofargumentative
improve
reading
cal understanding
ofthisinteraction
in studiesofthe andwriting.
teachingand learningofargumentative
readingand
an
that
could
also
writing, exploration
applytoall areas
ofliteracy
research.
Common Ground:
The fundamental
tension
weseebetweenstudiesof Finding
withina cognitive
versusa socialprac- Cognitive and Social Conceptions
argumentation
ticesorientation
seemstooccuraroundtheissueofthe of Transfer
unitofanalysis.Howcan a cognitive
comappropriate
A primary
focusofourreviewis on twodifferent
paramitment
tounderstanding
individual
purposeandselfnotions
ofwhatconstitutes
transfer
orwhat
digmatic
be reconciled
witha social
regulated
learning
strategies
Beach (1999)refersto as consequentialtransito thestudyofliteracy
events King
practicescommitment
tionsbetweenandacrossrhetorical
events.We identify
andpractices
orposhapedbyspecificsocial,cultural,
twopositionsthathaveemergedin debatesregarding
liticalperspectives?
theinteractive
visionalso
Moreover,
researchon a rangeofdifferent
issuesinvolving
litneedsto inform
instruction.
literacy
Althoughwe are
in
and teachingand learning
theusesofmultiple
frameworks,eracylearning general
suggesting
conceptual
in particular.
and writing
The
argumentative
reading
thecommongoal is studying
howreadersand writfirst
framesargument
as a cognitive
task(e.g.,
position
ersunderstand
themselves
as constructors
ofmeaning
taskAnderson,& Kuo, 2007)requiring
withinuniquesocialand culturaleventsthatcan both Reznitskaya,
suchas planning
andproblem
solvspecific
knowledge,
nurture
andconsumean individual
writer.
and recognition
and use ofa modelofargument
ing,
Educators
do notworkwithabstractions;
theywork
as theprimary
unitofanalywithstudents.Teachersneed an interactive
visionof (e.g.,Toulmin,1958/2003)
sis. The secondpositionframesargumentas social
thereadingandwriting
thatcan addressthe
arguments
2002;Prior,
2005)thatfocuses
(e.g.,Lunsford,
hurdles
thatstudents
often
face,thatcanaccountforthe practices
on socialcontextsorliteracy
thatis, "framing
events,
andsocialsourcesofbothsuccessandfailure,
cognitive
classroom
research
as peopleactingandreacting
toone
and thatcan talkabouttheexperience
ofreadingand
another"(Bloome,Beierle,Grigorenko,
& Goldman,
writing
arguments
bybeingadequatelyfinegrained 2009,
unitofanalysis.Fromour
p. 314)as theprimary
and situatedin thatexperience.
We wantto worktowe
thesedifferent
positions
warda framework
thatacknowledges
thepressures
and dialogicheuristic, perceive
as alternative,
andpotentially
research
complementary,
thepotential
thattheliteracy
eventcan provideand at
different
of
perspectives
defining
logics inquiry(Gee &
thesametimeexplainshowreadersand writers
nego- Green,1998;Green,Dixon,& Zaharlick,
2003)interms
tiatethatevent,createtheirowngoals,and developa
ofhowtheoretical
research
oncomassumptions
shape
senseofthemselves
as problemsolvers,speakers,or
and
of
texts.
prehension production argumentative
subjectswhocreatemeaningand affectotherpeople
thearguments
through
theyreadandwrite.
In askingforan examination
ofhowresearchon TransferWithina Cognitive Perspective
and
social
we Although
differences
betweenthesepositionsarecercognitive
processes
practicesinteract,
do notwantto suggestthatwe needa singleimageof tainlymorenuanced,a cognitiveapproachtypically
andlearning
an experimental
orquasi-experimental
teaching
argumentative
readingandwrit- employs
design
or
a
is
too
to
examine
transfer
intheuse ofcertain
of
instruction
ing
singleintegrated
theory;
literacy
complex
a phenomenon,
and history
tellsus thatsinglevisions argument
ortactics(e.g.,makingclaims,prostrategies
for
What
we
would
sources,counterarguing)
rarely
satisfy
manypeople verylong.
vidingevidence,referencing
278

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ofarguwritten
andschemaorstructure
explicit
teaching
(e.g.,claim,reasons,warrants) improving
arguments,
exment
did
not
have
the
intended
effects
to writing
orrecallingan argumentative
For
bythe
predicted
essay.
of
text
Students'
recall
the
inresearchers:
of
examine
the
effects
researchers
argumentative
ample,
might
acrossthethreeconditions.
of didnotdiffer
on goal settingrelatedto theformulation
struction
schematheory,
claimsand audiencesbyidentifying
claims,reasons,
Reznitskaya
Drawingon argument
forwhyexattention
to cognitive
de- et al. (2007)consideredtwoexplanations
withparticular
andwarrants
reflecdid
not
the
students'
instruction
in
in
these
differences
the
to
improve
plicit
ability engage
velopmental
"awareness
of
the
and
the
tive
students'
use
of
collaborarules,
attempt
essays:(1)
(Kuhn,2005).Or,
strategies
withthestudents'
in elementary
schoolclassroomdiscus- to applythem,mighthaveinterfered
tivereasoning
to generatemoreargumentofacquired abilityand motivation
sionsmaybe analyzedintermsoftransfer
in negative
transfer"
relevant
andcomstatements,
totheircomprehension
(p.
resulting
stratagems
argument
with
students'
and
etal, 2007). 467),
ofwritten
(2)
pastexperiences school-like
(Reznitskaya
position
arguments
withlearnStudiesconductedfromthecognitive
mayhaveledtointerference
perspective argumentation
in
collaborawere
included
the
new
that
learnargumentative
assumethatstudents
principles
readingand ing
on
discussions
lessons
tive
of
argument
plus
reasoning
knowledge
acquiringtask-specific
writing
through
In
treatment
condition.
and
the
structures
or
or
schemata
principles'
modeling scaffolding.
through
strategies
schema
theowithin
theirargumentative
withorinde- ourjudgment,
factors
fordifferent
To control
interacting
et
al.'s
and
analysismakessense.
ry,
Reznitskaya
reading writing,
shapingargumentative
pendently
However,we thinkthattheirexplanationwould
withinexperiexaminetheseassumptions
researchers
mentalorquasi-experimental
designstotesttheeffects havebenefitedfroma socialpracticetheoryofarguturnedoutto be a
to explainwhy"transfer
in such mentation
The logicofinquiryinherent
ofinstruction.
et al., 2007,
more
elusive
(Reznitskaya
phenomenon"
of
identiis
assume
the
to
research
possibility
designs
in
classroom
differences
for
469).
example,
Perhaps,
in
p.
between
instruction
cognitive
fyingdirecttransfer
in
which
the
students
and
the
contexts
literacy
practices
orschemataand reading/writing
outcomes,
strategies
rerehearsed
to
the
that
had
is,
study,
prior
engaged,
as wellas assumingthatone can controlforotherfacin
less
transfer
of
collaborative
sulted
more
or
reasoning
etal, 2007;Yeh,
torsshapingthattransfer
(Reznitskaya
withinandacrossthethreeconditions.
Onlylong-term
1998).However,
designsinwhichinstrucexperimental
consideration
of
studies
and
observational
in-depth
transfer
do
areassumedtopromote
tionalinterventions
the
would
within
classrooms
clarify
practices
illuminate
theprocessofteachingand literacy
notnecessarily
results
forthequasi-experimental
study.In
ambiguous
events.
classroom
within
literacy
unique
learning
is
how
transfer
after
the
sections,
describing
following
forinstance,is
A keyquestionrelatedto transfer,
in
the
social
and
studied
perpractices
aboutthestructural
whether
components conceptualized
knowledge
and socialnotions
we considerhowcognitive
in spective,
ofarguments
transfers
toimprovements
orprinciples
in
and complement
one another
oftransfer
bothdiffer
andwriting
students'
espearguments,
understanding
and
of
the
study argumentative
reading writing.
One way
wholackthatknowledge.
ciallyforstudents
disis howitmaybe affected
to considertransfer
by
The newlearning TransferWithina Social Perspective
contexts.
betweenrhetorical
parities
inevent can also differ
fromoriginal A socialperspective
orperformance
shiftsthefocusto thenatureand
in
A and dif- qualityofthesociocultural
event
contextitselfas mediated
learningin termsofparticipation
identitiesor persona, byuses oforal,analysis,genre,discourse,visual,and
ferencesin adoptingdifferent
toolsdesignedto achievecertainrhepurposes,and audiencesthatareso pronouncedthat digitalliteracy
transfer
breaksdown.
drawson sociallittoricalgoals.The socialperspective
in theteaching eracy(Street,
In a studyoftransfer
and
situated
performance
1995)
cognition(Gee,2004;
and col- Lave& Wenger,
and learningofargumentation,
theories
tofocusonhow
Reznitskaya
1991)learning
three
different
in
interaction
learners
social
(2007)
postintervention
designed
leagues
acquire
practices
through
abtransfer
of
andfifth
taskstomeasurefourth
In
contrast
to
much
events
and
activities.
graders'
experimenforargument
to readingand writing. talresearch
stractprinciples
inwhichtheresearcher
constructs
instrucconditions tional,rhetorical
The students
wereassignedtothreedifferent
contextsaccordingto a studydesign
inacquiring
structural
todifferences
related
researchers
knowledge withassignedtasksandaudiences,
adopting
a
inargument:
colandethnoversusengaging
aboutargument
a
social
(1)
positionemployqualitative
practice
as condiscussion
aboutmoralissuesfrom graphicresearch
methodsto examinecontexts
laborative
reasoning
discussions
and
students
a shortstory,(2) collaborative
structed
teachers
(Lillis,2008).
reasoning
by
within
research
ontransfer
As described
and principles,
previously,
plus lessonson argumentstructures
of
often
focuses
on
transfer
results
the
arid(3) routine
classroom
instruction.
perspective
cognitive
Although
with
an
across
tasks
in
or
schemata
thevalueofcollaborative
demonstrated
emphasis
knowledge
reasoning

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

279

onindividual
processessuchas represenpsychological
tationalgeneralization,
of
analogy,and thederivation
schemata(Dansereau,1995;Pressley,
"Individual
1995).
agencyis assumedto havelittleto do withthecreation
ofsocialcontexts
transfer,
supporting
justas changes
in contexts
arepresumedto havelittleto do withhow
individuals
learnanddevelopacrossthem"(K. Beach,
Morerecently,
has
1999,pp. 102-103).
however,
transfer
beendefinedintermsofnotonlyknowledge
orschematabutalsosocialpractices
andtoolsacrosseventsor
contexts(Iran-Nejad& Pearson,1999)thatmayfoster
As MariniandGnreux(1995)noted,
learning.
atonetimeoranother
theimportance
ofeachbasicelement
- task,learner,
- hasbeenemphaoftransfer
andcontext
sizedbyeducational
theorists.
Giventhateachelement
allthreeinto
playsa keyroleinthetransfer
process,
taking
accountwhendesigning
instruction
is mostadvisable.A
inthisdirection,
trend
toward
a morewholistic
to
approach
is apparent,
transfer,
achieving
(p. 5)

Researchers
oftooluse across
analyzingtransfer
eventsorcontextsfocuson variation
in uses ofsocial
in
and
tools
different
events
orcontexts.
For
practices
studies
of
example,Dyson's(1995,2008)ethnographic
students'writing
demonstrated
thatstudentsin different
classroomslearnto writein different
ways,and
studentsin thesameclassroomslearndifferent
stratdifferent
egiesand prefer
genres.She used themetaphorofa "sea ofvoices"to explainhowand whythis
happens:
The appropriation
ofwordsandthedeliberate
decisionto
usethemornotinparticular
decisions
about
waysinvolves
aboutwhotheauthors
wanttobe as theyoribeingitself,
entthemselves
ina sea ofvoices.Becoming
amongothers
awareofhowtextualoptions[andpractices]
linktosocial
andideologicalalternatives
is dependent
on interaction
withothers
inthesea. (Dyson,2000,
positioned
differently
pp.59-60)

Interactionof the Two Perspectives

in the Study of Transfer

Each ofthesetworesearchperspectives,
thecognitive
andthesocial,carrieswithitcertainassumptions
about
researchmethodsforstudying
and
transfer
learning
ofargument,
and each has clearimplications
forcurriculumandinstruction.
studies
ofthe
Usingempirical
and
of
conteaching learning argumentative
writing
ductedingradesK-12 and collegewriting
classrooms,
we delineatetheassumptions
thatdrivethetwoperandtheirinstructional
spectives
consequences,
arguing
thatresearchers
and teachersneedan articulated
unoftheirassumptions
aboutknowledge
and
derstanding
transfer
to establisha clearand coherent
relationship
betweentheory
andpractice.
We do notperceivetheseas necessarily
contradicbut
rather
as
toryperspectives,
complementary
perto understanding
spectivesthatcan each contribute
theteaching
andlearning
ofargumentative
readingand
are
writing.
Cognitive
processes alwayspartofhowpeoact
and
react
to
eachothersocially,
when
ple
including
tothem.
theydiscussissuesanddebateideasimportant
we distinguish
thecognitive
fromthesocial
Although
in ourreviewofstudiesofargumentative
readingand
we also recognizethatduringclassroomdiswriting,
assumethatcognitive
cussions,teachersand students
are
in
involved
processes
composingand understandtexts
as
well
as
in
ing
makingsenseofthediscussion.
classroom
discussion,
Through
processessuchas collaborative
and
inferential
aremade
reasoning
thinking
et
Kucan
&
Beck,2003)and
public(Bloome al, 2009;
transferable
to
new
contexts
and
tasks.
perhaps
A recentstudybyJadallahand colleagues(2011)
a research
suggested
agendaforthestudyofargumentativereading
andwriting
fromaninteractive
perspective.
In theirstudyofa teacher'sscaffolding
movesduring
collaborative
at
theylookedsimultaneously
reasoning,
thereasoningmovesthatstudentsappropriated
and
theinteractional
context
thattheteacherand students
coconstructed
tomakeeffective
collaborative
reasoning
that
possible,concluding

arealsoparticularly
in how
Researchers
interested
in
learners
recontextualization
1996;
(Bernstein,
engage
van
or
relocalization
1999;
Leeuwen,
2008)
Dyson,
collaborative
a socialcontext
reasoning
appearstoprovide
recontextualize
2010),thatis,howlearners
(Pennycook,
inwhichchildren
areabletorepeatedly
andspontaneously
orrelocalizetheuses ofsocialpracticesas wellas exof[sic]usetoolsforthinking
andappropriate
newtoolsfrom
and assumptions
aboutthetopicand about
pectations
oneanother
andfrom
their
teacher.
As children
in
improve
whatcountsas aneffective
whenoperating
in
argument
reach
a
level
of
and
conargumentation,
they
independence
a newornovellocalevent.However,
small-scalestudinusingthesetools,(p. 227)
sciousness
ieswithsmallnumbers
ofstudents
raisequestions:
Are
in a qualitative
thedescriptions
analysisa meaningful NotethatJadallahet al. (2001)wereableto makethis
ofwhatcouldhappenacrossotherinstruc- claimbywarranting
theirconclusions
description
usingtheoretical
tionalevents?Does theeffectiveness
focusedoncognitive
of,say,instruc- framing
processesandsocialpractionalscaffolding
forargumentative
and
tices:
notion
ofstudents'
writing reading
Rogoffs(1995/2008)
approprithatis revealed
inonestudydiffer
initseffects
on other ationofunderstanding
via socialpracticeswhenthey
takepartinjointactivities
withtheirparentsorother
groupsofstudents?
280

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

reasonsand formulate
adults,and Chirm's(2006)notionofthemicrogenetic supporting
counterarguments
toexaminechangeboth generated
methodthatallowsresearchers
higherqualityessaysthandid studentsasandquantitatively.
qualitatively
signedto writeusingmoregenericgoals (Ferretti,
& Dowdy,2000).
MacArthur,
In anotherstudy,seventhand eighthgradersin an
weregivengoalsto (a) produce
condition
experimental
Research on Argumentative
theiressays'premises,(b) produce
reasonssupporting
Reading and WritingWithin
or (c) produce
refutations
ofalternative
standpoints,
a Cognitive Perspective
both,whereasstudentsin a controlgroupwerenot
& Graham,1999).
Much,butnotall, oftheresearchon argumentative givenanyspecificgoals (Page-Voth
in
the
half
of
the
students
em- Further,
withina cognitive
experimental
group
perspective
readingandwriting
whereon formulating
and quasi-experimental
arguments,
designsto receivedinstruction
ploysexperimental
who
Students
in uses ofvarious as theotherhalfreceivedno instruction.
ofinstruction
examinetheeffects
of
on
the
instruction
schemata
the
or
received
quality
higher
quality argumentative
generated
goal
strategies
(Felton& Kuhn,2001),a focusthatbuildson argumentative
writing
essaysthandid studentsin thecontrol
for- condition;
modelsofcomposing
in essayqualityfor
therewas no difference
processing
cognitive
previous
mulatedin the1970sand 1980s(Haas & Flower,1988; studentswho receivedinstruction
versusthosewho
&
and eighthgraderswere
whenfifth
1980).
did not.Similarly,
Hayes Flower,
- a generalgoal,a
of
three
conditions
to
one
assigned
in
content
Studies of Goal Formulation
goal,and an audiencegoalgroup- students
were
more
and
audience
content
both
the
goalgroups
in ArgumentativeReading and Writing
leadingto
writing,
One keyfocusin thisresearchis students'abilityto likelyto revisetheirargumentative
whoreceivedaudience
students
qualitywriting;
formulate
goals higher
goalsrelatedto claimsand formulate
to consideropposing
more
were
awareness
likely
goals
the
onaudiences,
effects
tointended
related
particularly
&
MacArthur,
Haria,
2008).
onthequalityofpost- perspectives
inspecificity
(Midgette,
ofvariations
effects
the
indicate
that
studies
these
that
specificity
testargumentative
Although
essays.Basedontheassumption
influencesstudents'argumentaaudiencegoalswouldenhance ofgoal formulation
consider
havingstudents
and directreferences tivewriting
ofcounterarguments
clarityofpurpose,otherrebyproviding
recognition
thatthereareotherfactors
to audiences,Sexton,Harris,and Graham(1998)as- searchindicates
influencing
inthe
differwhereas
to
three
students
For
fifthand
students'
instance,
writing
writing.
eighth-grade
signed
definedbydifferent
conditions
enttreatment
goals- a elaboratedgoal conditionresultedin higherquality
and a essaysforbothfourth
and sixthgradersand forlearncontent,
improving
generalgoal,a goalinvolving
- forarand audience
ofgoalsforcontent
combination
versusnon-learning
disabled
students
disabled,
ing
in
the
third
Students
on
the
studentsin theelaboratedgoal conditiondid notemtopic.
writing
gumentative
treatment
condition,
to
ofalternative
goals forcontentand audience, ploydetailedformulation
arguments
andrefute
toentertain
weremorelikely
opposingposi- refute
not
did
because
thosearguments,
they
possibly
tionsthanstudentsin theothertwogroups;students wantto lendcredenceto thosealternative
arguments
inboththeaudienceandthecontent
groupswrotees- (Ferretti,
& Lewis 2007). Their
Andrews-Weckerly,
saysjudgedto be morepersuasivethandid students
revealedthat70%ofthevarianceinthequalinthegeneralgoalgroups;eighthgraders'essayswere analysis
totheuse
essayscouldbe attributed
ityofthestudents'
judgedto be morepersuasivethanwerethoseofthe ofspecificelements
as opposedtodemoofargument,
fifth
graders.
vs.sixth)and
ofgradelevel(i.e.,fourth
factors
Researchershave also examinedthe effectsof graphic
vs.
disabled
disabled).
non-learning
(learning
ofassignedgoalsin writ- disability
in theelaboration
variation
based
most
Students
employed
arguments
frequently
based on theassumptionthatmore
ingassignments
of
of
the
benefit
consequences adoptanalysis
elaboratedgoalsprovidestudentswithmorespecific on costfroman examwhereas
a
certain
argument
policy,
ing
aboutpurposeand audienceforformulatscaffolding
weremore
and
verbal
classification
slope,
ple,
slippery
In onestudy,
students
givenmore
ingtheirarguments.
the
students'
However,
arguemployed.
elaboratedgoals fortheirwritinggeneratedhigher infrequently
be
to
ments
were
still
undeveloped,
relatively
perceived
qualitypersuasiveessays than studentswho were
in acquirinstruction
for
the
need
&
strategy
nonelaborated
suggesting
Kardash,
(Nussbaum
goals
given
related
who ing
students
and sixth-grade
fourthdesignedto bolster
knowledge
background
2005).Similarly,
et al.,2007;
reasons
wereassignedtowriteargumentative
(Ferretti
essayswithmore thequalityofsupporting
elaborated,
specificgoalsbasedontheneedtoprovide Graham,2006).
Readingand Writing:A Reviewof Research
Teachingand LearningArgumentative

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

281

usetheseschemata
tostructure
theiressays,suggesting
evidenceoftransfer
fromreadingtowriting.
Forexamin
instruction
features
of
identifying
argumentative
A primary
taskresearchis howin- ple,
focusofcognitive
textshelped12th-grade
students
textualcues
identify
in
textstransfers
struction readingofargumentative
toidentify
theargument
claim-evidence
relastructure,
thosetexts(Bergmann& Zepernick,2007;
to writing
and
formulation
of
the
(Chambliss,
argument
haveexaminedtherelation- tionships,
Wardle,2007).Researchers
1995).
shipbetweenstudents'readingabilityin interpreting This focuson readerschemataleads to issuesof
texts(Grate,
andwriting
Melero,Tejerina,
Echevarria, how
ofschemataorcontent
as wellas
priorknowledge
& Gutierrez,
2007;Parodi,2007;Sadoski& Paivio,2001), attitudes
influence
and
of
reading writing argumentaas wellas howwriting
textstransfers
argumentative
tiveessays.Forexample,readersandwriters
mayadopt
backto readingthosetexts(Wiley& Voss,1999).In a
a mysidebiasagainstinformation
thatsupports
opposwereassignedtowrite
large-scale
study,
eighth
graders
writers
to failto includecouning
arguments,
leading
an essaybasedon a specificpurpose,texttype,topic,
in
theirownpositions(Wolfe
as wellas to answernineopen- terargumentsformulating
audience,andregister,
& Britt,
Researchontheinfluence
ofmyside
bias
2008).
endedquestionsin responseto argumentative
texts
onwriting
foundthatcollegestudents
whowere
quality
over(Parodi,2007).The resultsindicatedsignificant
morelikelyto applyschemataforrecognition
and reall correlation
(0.72)betweenmicrostructural
(0.57), buttalof
evidence
supporting
generated
higherquality
macrostructural
(0.68),and superstructural
(0.79)psyandmorefavorable
ofthewriter
than
essays
perceptions
forcomprehension
and procholinguistic
processing
did students
whodid notincludeopposition
evidence;
ductionofargumentative
texts.As readersandwriters,
tutorialsfocusingon use ofargumentative
schemata
werebetterableto comprehend
students
andproduce
their
formulation
of
claims
and
reasons
and
textsintermsoflocalcoherence,
butlessableto inter- improved
reducedmysidebias (Wolfeet al, 2009).It is also the
structures
becauseof case thatthe
pretorcomposeargumentative
to whichreaderswillchangetheir
or
orem- beliefsis a degree
graders'memory
eighth
challenges inferring
function
ofthedegreetowhichtextscontain
linksbasedon recognition
of
ployingmacrostructural
theirlevelofinterest
and comprehensibilrefutations,
theoverallstructure.
and thedegreeto whichtheyrecognizehowtheir
In a studyoftheeffects
ofreadinginstruction
on ity,
ownbiasesinfluence
theiranalysisofsupporting
data
11-and 12-year-old
students
argumentative
writing,
& Garner,
(Chambliss
1996).
wereassignedto one offourgroups:a groupthatreStudentsmayalso benefit
frominstruction
involvceivedprocess-oriented
a group
instruction,
writing
ofthe wordingof claims,forexample,
ing
analysis
thatreceived
instruction
process-oriented
writing
plus analyzinghowclaimpredicatesarewordedto assess
texts,a groupthatreceived claim-reason
readinganalysisofpro/con
arguments.When askedto ratetheir
thesamereadinganalysisbutno writing
instruction,
with
suchas "recycling
should
agreement arguments
and a control
1990).Analysisofthe be federally
group(Crowhurst,
mandatedbecauseithelpsprotect
theenposttestargumentative
essaysfoundthatthestudents vironment,"
and "recycling
is cost-effective
becauseit
inthewriting
instruction
andwriting/reading
instructhe
environment"
and
thenreprotect
(p. 61),
tiongroupsdidsignificantly
better
thanstudents
inthe helps
call theseclaims,76%ofundergraduate
participants
thevalreadinganalysisandcontrol
groups,suggesting
recalledthe predicateof the claim but
accurately
ue ofintegrating
instruction.
readingandwriting
weremoreaccuratein recallingthegistor themeof
theclaim(Brittetal, 2008).The abilityto recallthese
in thatwhilethereasongiven
Argumentative Reader Schema
predicatesis important
In a studyofreadingVoss(2005) in thesetwoclaims,"becauseithelpsprotecttheenrelationships,
writing
examinedhow studentsacquirefromreadingargu- vironment,"
supportsthefirstclaim,studentsneed
mentative
schemataforcomposingclaims,reasons, to unpacktheassumptions
abouttherelationship
bein theirwriting.
and counterarguments
For tweencost-effectiveness
and protecting
theenvironwarrants,
is cost-effective
claims,readersandwriters
example,in analyzing
may mentforthesecondclaim,"recycling
oftheme(topic/subject), becauseithelpsprotecttheenvironment,"
applyschemaexpectations
requiring
side (pro/con),and predicate(position)of a claim theirawarenessoftheneed to interrogate
thatwar& Wolfe,2008).Whenread- rantssupportingclaim-reasonrelationships.
Taken
Dandotkar,
(Britt,
Kurby,
ersrespondnegatively
to a claim,theythenuse these as whole,thesefindingssuggesttheneedforreading
schematato searchforexamplesofrelevant
familiar instruction
inunpacking
orwarrants
unassumptions
claim-reason
arguments
(e.g.,thatwomenshouldhavetherightto derlying
relationships.
maketheirownchoiceson abortion),
ortheymaygenIn a series of threestudies,Larson, Britt,and
eratetheirowncounterarguments.
As writers,
instruction
theythen Kurby(2009)examinedtheuse oftutorial

IntegratingReading and Writing

ArgumentInstruction

282

Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

claims Effectsof Collaborative Reasoning

involving
analysisofflawedversusnonflawed
of Discussions on
on collegeandhighschoolstudents'
comprehension
Argumentative Reading
In
first
in
their
claim-reason
relationships.
predicates
and Writing
study,Larsonand colleaguesexaminedtheuse of a One
lineofresearchrelatedto theintegrasignificant
tutorial
forcollegestudents'
analysis tionof
paper-and-pencil
and discussingfocuseson
reading,
of "acceptable"claims(e.g.,"banksshouldn'tcharge collaborative writing,
discussionsdesignedto help
reasoning
un- students
ATM feesbecausethefeesmakemanycustomers
for
acquireand adopt argumentstrategies
claims(e.g.,"banksshouldn't transfer
happy"),"unwarranted"
etal, 2007,
toreadingandwriting
(Reznitskaya
chargeATM feesbecause banksare financialinsti- 2009).RichardAndersonand colleagues(2001)examtutions"),and "unsupported"claims (e.g., "banks inedtheextentto whichuses ofcognitiveand intershouldn't
only61% actionalprocessesinvolvedin collaborative
chargeATM fees";p. 348).Although
reasoning
accurateon check- discussionsinfluenced
wereinitially
ofthecollegestudents
stratrhetorical
and
reasoning
80%wereable egies.Afteranalyzingover14,000linesoftranscribed
takingthetutorial,
ingfora reason,after
intheirability
tore- discussionsfromsmall-group
to do so,buttheydid notimprove
discussionsin fourthconfirmedtheir
researchers
the
arguments.
classrooms,
jectunwarranted
grade
In thesecondexperiment,
in whichstudents
collegestudentscom- notionofa snowballphenomenon,
from
a varietyofargumentstratagems
pleted a computertutorialthatprovidedfeedback appropriated
of
unwarranted/
with
the
on
their
used
the
tutorial
over
their
time,
and,
analysis
strategies induring
peers
of
the
the
claims.
versus
Analysis
Bytracking uses ofstrategies
acceptable
creasingfrequency.
unsupported
foundthatdiftheresearchers
recallaccuracyindicatedthatstudentswhoreceived overtimeindiscussions,
same
to
the
as
ferent
who
students
than
more
accurate
students,
thefeedbackwere
students, opposed just
these
were
feedofproviding
theimportance
did not,suggesting
indicating
employing strategies,
increasingly
wereacquiringuse ofargumentative
back.Forthethirdstudy,thetutorialwas converted thatthestudents
& Anderson,
to 50 ad- schemata(Reznitskaya
2002).
to a Web-basedtutorialand administered
fifth
In
an
study,
gradersengagedin
experimental
vancedplacementhighschool studentsenrolledin
insmallgroupsovera five-week
reasoning
critical
coursesinvolving
Initially, collaborative
readingandwriting.
in storiesinwhich,fostered
on
issues
portrayed
70%ofthestudentscould accurately
analyzeclaims; period
students
challengedeachothers'
thetuto- byteachercoaching,
aftercompleting
an additional10%improved
(Reznitskaya
counterarguments
rial.This researchsuggeststhatgivenstudents'diffi- claimsandformulated
of
et
al,
essays
2001).
posttest
argumentative
Analysis
write
claims,in orderto
argument
cultyin critiquing
in
the
collaborative
found
that
reasoning
participation
essays,theyneed feedbackas wellas resulted
argumentative
in a significantly
highernumberofarguments
in distinguishing
instruction
acceptable and rebuttals
structurally
references
to thestoriesthan
well
as
as
intextsthey
fromunacceptable
arguments
arguments
inthecontrol
students
werefoundin essayswritten
by
arereading.
group.
textsis also
Students'writingof argumentative
In a morerecentstudy,Dong, Anderson,Kim,
of
certain
influenced
typesofargu- and Li
bypriorreading
reasoningin a
(2008)examinedcollaborative
In assessingthevaforwriting.
mentsin preparation
"that
to questiontheassumption
non-Western
setting
lidityof argumentsin textA, studentsmayrelyon children's
influences
oflanguagesocialization
history
whichcouldbe biasedand un- thesuccess
theirpriorknowledge,
unfatheymightachievewitha previously
reliable,ortheycouldreadtexts and C, whichpro- miliardiscoursepractice"(p. 401).Studiesconducted
to textA (Kobayashi,2010). attwositesin Chinaand one in Koreafoundthatthe
videcounterarguments
This requiresnotonlythatstudentshave access to students
readilyacquireduse ofand wereengagedin
and/orarewillingto seekoutothertextsthatprovide collaborative
reasoningin a mannersimilarto results
butalso thattheythenareable fromstudiesofU.S. students.Aftercountingoccuralternative
arguments,
to contrastthe positionsin thesetexts,something rencesofarguments,
and rebuttals
counterarguments,
et.
al. argued
doing(Kobayashi,2009).When in thestudents'reflective
theyhavedifficulty
Dong
essays,
textson fourdif- thatthe"waysofthinking
oral
discuscollegestudentsreadtwodifferent
during
acquired
ferentissues in different
and
internalized
were
orders,readingtextswith sion [collaborative
reasoning]
not
What
is
to written
first,moststudentsdescribed transferred
proorcon arguments
421).
(p.
argument"
in theiressays(Kobayashi, clearfromtheirfrequency
counthecompeting
countsofarguments,
arguments
towhichreadistheextent
andrebuttals
2010).This suggeststhatstudentscan drawon com- terarguments,
or
less
well
more
that
in
find
the
their
ers
would
argued(i.e.,
essays
assuming they
writing,
petingarguments
ofa complex
thecomponents
have access to competingperspectives,whichthey theabilityto orchestrate
conditions.This
can oftenaccessonline.
argument)acrosstheexperimental

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

283

and counterarguments
servedto increase
arguments
thequalityofthecounterarguments.
Thus,providing
withspecificgoalinstructions
students
and requiring
themtoreada textbefore
their
writing essaysincreased
theirconsideration
ofcounterarguments.
In a relatedexperimental
study,Nussbaumand
Schraw(2007)gavecollegestudents
in criinstruction
teriaforassessingarguments
in theuse
orinstruction
ofa graphicorganizer
thatmappedthesis-support
relaStudents
whoreceived
thecriteria
instruction
tionships.
forwhatconstitutes
an effective
werebetter
argument
abletointegrate
theirarguments
andcounterarguments
intermsofformulating
whereasthestudents
rebuttals,
whoreceived
thegraphicorganizer
instruction
showed
morerefutations
ofcounterarguments.
The use ofthe
graphicorganizerseemedto haveencourageduse of
an adversarial
refutation
stancefocusing
on opposition
positions.
Anotherexperimentalstudyexaminedthe use
Use of Outlines or Templates as Scaffolds
of
Studentsalso benefit
fromoutlinesortemplates
scafargumentationvee diagrams (AVDs) to foster
based on a
ofarguments
and counter- argument-counterargument
integration
foldingthedevelopment
visual
a
V
to
scaffold
with
to
different
depiction
using
arguments,
arguments,
includinglearning analyze
on
the
left
side
the
of
V,
in
texts.
Students
benefit
from
pro
arguments
counterarguargumentative
strategies
atthe
conclusions
side,andpotential
and reflecton mentsontheright
beingable to metacognitively
identify
bottom
A
&
of
Schraw,
to
theiruse ofargumentative
determine
the
(Nussbaum
2007).
comparison
strategies
effectiveness
ofthosestrategies.
One studycomparing use oftheAVD by collegestudentsfoundthatthose
a groupofstudents
wholabeledtheirargument
strate- usingitweremorelikelyto generate
compromise
poas
and sitionsand changetheirpositionsthanwerestudents
evidence,
challenges,
gies arguments,
supporting
versusa groupwhodidnotlabelargument whodid notuse it.Analysisoftheuse ofa prewriting
explanations
insignificantly
foundthattheformer
greater
strategies
groupwas morelikely AVD foundthatuseofitresulted
use
of
thanfor
thanthelatter
toformulate
argument-counterargument
integration
challenges
group(C. Brooks
students
whodidnotemploytheAVD. This studyalso
&Jeong,2006).
a strategy
ofminimization
in arguidentified
involved
Nussbaumand Kardash(2005)conductedtwoexthat
the
inwhichtheyprovided
directions
tocollege- ment-counterargument
integration, is,
ability
periments
thesignificance
orextensiveness
forthreedifferent
kindsofessays.In the tocurtailorminimize
age students
first
theresearchers
variedthreetreatments ofa problemorissue.
experiment,
In anotherexperimental
in termsofthedirections
study,studentsanalyzed
theyprovided:(1) a control
condition
write
an
public
policy
problems
portrayed
onlyas text,as a
("please
essayexpressing
youropincausal
or
use
of
tools
a
condition
reason
write
an
exdiagram,
through
diagramming
ion"),(2)
("please
essay
for
their
own
Provide
as
reasons
as
Aleven,
constructing
diagram
(Easterday,
pressing
youropinion.
many
you
andtrytoprovideevidence & Scheines,2007).Based on students'analysesof a
cantojustify
yourposition,
students
whoengagedin use ofthe
thatsupportsyourreasons"),and (3) a counterargu- textualargument,
evidencethatsupportsyour causaldiagramwerebetterableto organizetheirpermentcondition("provide
thanwerestudentsin the
reasons.Then discusstwoorthreereasonswhyoth- ceptionsofthearguments
treatment.
Students
ersmight
with
and
those
reasons
are
text-only
usingthediagramming
you, why
disagree
tool
learned
more
about
causalarguments
As
Nussbaum
and
Kardash
constructing
wrong";
p. 159). expected,
withthetextorcausaldiagrams,
because
foundthatpersuasioninstructions
reducedthenum- thanstudents
the
students
with
the
tool
were
berofcounterarguments
students:
The
actively
engagedinusing
by
generated
it
to
construct
their
studentsbelievedthatidentifying
arguments.
counterarguments
A ratherconsistent
wouldmaketheirownarguments
less persuasive.In
patternin thesestudiesis the
infostering
role
thesecondexperiment,
the
researchers
however,
pro- significant playedbycounterarguments
videda textthatoutlined
numerous
students'
reflective
consideration
of
thatthey
on
both
arguments
positions
sidesoftheissue,andthecontrasting
textcounteracted hadassumedwerecorrect.
also
benefited
However,
they
thenegative
ofpersuasion
effects
instructions.
Results fromstrategic
use ofscaffolds
tomanagethecomplexiindicatedthathavinga textwiththedifferent
typesof tiesofweighing
arguments
againstcounterarguments.
theconstruct
validityof
pointraisesissuesregarding
measures
researchers'
(Camp,1993).
writing
whether
sucA somewhat
similarstudyconsidered
in oralcollaboration
transfers
to
cessfulparticipation
A
of
stuwritten
successful
argumentation.comparison
learnthatcombinedcooperative
dentsin a condition
ingwithquestionaskingversusa conditionwithjust
inthecooperfoundthatstudents
cooperative
learning
ativeplusquestioning
condition
moreelaboemployed
in
andjustifications
fortheirresponses
rations,
reasons,
theirdiscussions
thandidtheirpeersinthecooperative
condition(Gillies& Khan,2009).However,
theseoral
collaboration
didnottransfer
tothestudents'
practices
whentheywrotewithout
collaborative
writing
support.
Thissuggests
theuse ofmorecoltheneedtoconsider
laborative
thatwe discuss
activities,
writing
something
inmoredetailintermsofonlineargumentative
writing.

284

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

in changesintheirdiagrams(Laurinen& Marttunen,
Computer-Scaffolding Tools
of
Researchers
havealso examinedtheuse ofcomputer- 2007).Studentsalso drewon theirpriorknowledge
to
make
the
collaboration
the
issue
evoked
through
orscript
mind-mapping,
scaffolding
graphicorganizer,
theimporintheirdiagrams,
modifications
suggesting
orthat
serve
to
scaffold
and/or
tools
visually
prompt
of
transformation
as
of
collaboration
tance
fostering
ganize arguments(Andriessenet al., 2003;Erdurai
on
an
issue.
& Jimnez-Aleixandre,
2008; Kirschner,Shum, & knowledge
ofparticipaA relatedstudycomparedtheeffects
inpress;Stegmann,
Pinkwart
&
McLaren,
Carr,2003;
veronline
in
an
tion
(control)
argument
asynchronous
& Fischer,2007;foran extensivereview
Weinberger,
tool
a
notation
the
use
of
graph
plus
ofresearchon use ofthesetools,see Scheuer,Loll, sus participation
in
which
students
couldadd
nodes
and
arrows,
using
of
comFor
use
&
Pinkwart, McLaren,2010). example,
betweenarguconnections
for
designedto assistmiddle chatboxes identifying
putergraphicsscaffolding
in formulating
evidenceforproblem- mentsversususe ofthegraphnotiontooland another
schoolstudents
to click
thatallowedstudents
had significant
solutionrelationships
positiveeffects threadeddiscussiontool
own
their
were
as
material
on
the
writing
they
graph
When
onthestudents'
(Belland,2010).
argumentation
&
material
Medina,
Dwyer,
Joseph,
(Suthers,
Vatrapu,
wereprovidedwithmapsversusa text
collegestudents
weremore
the 2008).Studentsin thelattertwoconditions
whoemployed
thestudents
ofan argument,
version
in
the
earlier
their
to
formulate
process
positions
aspectsof likely
mapswerebetterableto recallthedifferent
in
were
students
than
on
those
elaborate
and
positions
the
whoemployed
thanwerethestudents
an argument
condition.
the
discussion-only
in comtherewas no difference
textversion,
although
havealso examinedtheuse ofonline
Researchers
&
Stewart,
2010).
Analysis
(Dwyer,Hogan,
prehension
systems,suchas InterLoc,AcademicTalk,
assistedargument
oftheuse ofcomputermappingat argument
thecollegelevelindicatedthattheuse ofthismapping Araucaria,Carneades,ArgunautKnowledgeForum,
Athena,Theseus,Digalo,Rationale,
withusefulsupportforformulating Truthmapping,
providedstudents
use
and scaffold
and
Convince
Me,
designedto foster
different
in
a
of
disciplines(Davies,
arguments range
collaborative
ofproductive
(Andriessen,
argumentation
2009).
et
et
Scheuer
al,
al,
2010;
2006;
2007).For
onto
also
serve
can
Stegmann
organize
Graphicorganizers
discussionsby helpingstudents example,building on Scardamalia and Bereiter's
line argumentative
construction,
to as- (1994)notionsofscaffolding
theirarguments
and
knowledge
document
portray
visually
thoseargumentscollaboratively InterLoc(www.interloc.org.uk/)
providesstudents
sistin formulating
2009). witha selectionofsentencestarters(e.g.,"I think...,"
(Dowell,Tscholl,Gladisch,& Asgari-Targhi,
allow
is
that
of
One advantage diagrams
peersto "Let me explain...,""I disagreebecause...,""Is there
they
anotherwayoflookingat it.. .") thatpromptformulaintertexthe
of
sharedperceptions
nonlinear,
generate
tion
of arguments.These onlineargumentsystems
of
an
betweendifferent
tualrelationships
aspects
arguwithbothimmediateand
also
foster
can
ment(Suthers& Hundhausen,2003;vanAmelsvoort,
interactivity
who
audiences
worldwide
perspecprovidealternative
Andriessen,& Kanselaar,2008). For example,fifth
the
&
on
issues
tives
when
(Wiley Bailey,2006).Forexample,
gradersgeneratedmoredevelopedarguments
relaand
Carneades
Araucaria
visuallydisplay
systems
diagram
employedan argument
theycollaboratively
betweenpropositions,
reasons,andpremises,
listedpro-conpositions tionships
thanwhentheycollaboratively
to examinehowcertainpremises
may
leadingstudents
Neuman,&Biezuner,2000).
(Schwarz,
In anotherstudy,16 secondaryschool students ormaynotleadto certainconclusions(Walton,2011).
inonlinechatpairsadopting
pro-conpositions Systemssuch as Araucariacan be appliedforuse of
working
orargumentation
schemes,
on vivisectionand genderequalityeitheremployed specific
typesofarguments
witness
from
for
discussions
to
theirownargument
expert
testimony,
example,
argument
diagrams capture
or employedcomputerdiagramsthatautomatically opinion,popularopinion,example,analogy,practical
constructeddiscussions(Salminen,Marttunen,& reasoning(i.e.,fromgoal to action),verbalclassificaLaurinen,2010).Analysisofthesediagramsindicated tion,andsign(Walton,Reed,& Macagno,2008).
thatalthoughthesetwo different
Analysis of an early version of InterLoc,
diagramsdid not
foundthatcollegestudentsusingthis
the
studentintermsofformulating
differ
AcademicTalk,
arguments,
others'
more
tool
more
of
the
students'
included
constructed
directly
engagedwithandchallenged
diagrams
extended
more
also
students
the
did
the
issue
than
on
the
generated
computer- positions;
priorknowledge
thandid students
engagedin an online
generateddiagrams.In an earlierstudy,analysisof argumentation
tool
use
of
this
forum
without
to
after
students'
in
from
before
Ravenscroft,
(McAlister,
changes diagrams
ofthe
Research
on
&
in
collaborative
and
of
articles
Scanlon,
2004).
implementation
participation
reading
fostered toolwithover350usersat fivedifferent
chatdebatesindicatedthatthecollaboration
collegesites
it
andteachers
as evident foundthatstudents
ofarguments,
recallandelaboration
further
judged as fostering

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

285

inthiscondition
Substantive
collaborative
Students
added
(McAlisteret al., chatdebatecondition.
argument
was
not
more
material
that
related
to
the
2004).
directly
priaremoreappropri- maryarguments,
mostofthesesystems
whichsuggests
thatusinggraphssimAlthough
someresearchhas suggested plytorepresent
ateforcollegestudents,
doesnotencourage
students
arguments
be
with
thattheycan used
secondarystudents.In a to adoptandrecognizeconflicting
opinionsassociated
whereassimply
thedifdescriptive
study,teachersorganizedonlinediscus- withan argument,
representing
sionsforninthgradersaroundnarrativecases that ferent
moreportrayal
ofgroup
arguments
represents
orwickedproblemsabout consensusthanconflicting
represent
poorlystructured
opinions.All ofthispoints
havesomeinvestment
whichstudents
and knowledge totheimportance
ofdefining
specificpurposesforusandforwhichtherearealternative
solutions(Schwarz ingmappingorgraphing
toolstofoster
representations
& De Groot,2007).The students
also usedtheDigalo ofarguments.
toolthatincludesmappingand synThisresearch
ontheuseofdiagrams,
system
argument
maps,graphic
chronousforumswithand withoutfloorcontrolsto organizers,
and onlineargument
forscaffoldsystems
in
which
students
the
and
of
organizeturn-taking,
request
ing reading
writing argumentssuggeststhe
floorto add contributions.
of
the
in
of
and
Analysis
changes
importance acquiredschemataforidentifying
ofclaim-reason-warrant
A
pre and postargumentative
essaysfoundsignificant development
relationships.
inopenness,
definedbydecisiveness
and keyremaining
research
improvement
questionhastodo withhowuse
thenumberofperspectives
acrossdisparate
adopted.The researchers ofthesediagramstransfers
topicsand
notedthatonereasonfortheshiftinperspectives
was typesoftexts.
relatedto beingexposedto multipleperspectives.
In
a relatedstudyoftheeffects
ofDigalo on argument,
and Limitations
oftheeffects
ofdifferent
conditions
in Strengths
resulted
analysis
of a Cognitive Perspective
infloorcontrol
differences
on seventh
gradersarguing
has effectively
insmallgroupsontheissueofwearing
schooluniforms Applicationofa cognitive
perspective
identified
how
use
of
or schemata
that
specificstrategies
(Schwarz& Glassner,
2007).The resultsindicated
is
with
associated
different
of
in
effectiveness
onlinediscussions
controlled
turndegrees
organizing
through
and
texts.
Instructional
inthe reading writing
resulted
argumentative
takinganduse ofnaturalconversations
in
research
uses
of
orschematahas
of
more
relevant
claims
and
specific
strategies
development
arguments
certainargumenthanwas thecase withlackoffloorcontroland more documented
waysinwhichteaching
tativestrategies,
in termsofformulating
formal
conversations.
particularly
rhetorical
theirargumentative
the
use
of
or
specific
goals
shaping
Although
maps graphicorganizers
research
on
Further,
serve
to
scaffold
students'
reading.
reading
argumentative
may
effectively
representatowriting
texts
tionsofaspectsofarguments
anduse ofargumentativetextsrelated
argumentative pointstothe
value
of
in
instruction
text
structures
related
toimprovand
not
necesmaps
strategies,
graphicorganizers
may
the
need
for
enhance
critical
of
issues
ingargument
writing,
suggesting
integrasarily
understandingcomplex
instruction.
as withanytechnology tionofreading/writing
(Scheueretal.,2010).Moreover,
havealso
areusingmapsor
Cognitivestudiesofreadingand writing
tool,thepurposesforwhichstudents
what
referred
to
as
basedoncertain
classroom
activities provided
Hayes (2006)
complex
graphic
organizers
thatis,representations
orinstructions
canresult
indifferences
inlearning.
frameworks,
designedtoexplore
orsituations.
He delineated
fiveways
In a studyofuse ofan argumentation
diagramin complexprocesses
issues:to
15-and 16-year-old
students thatframeworks
mightbe appliedtoresearch
pairedonlinearguments,
ofkeyelements
andrelations
withincomwereassignedto aid memory
engagedin onlinedyadarguments
Toulmin's
one oftwoconditionsrelatedto howtheyused their plexsystems(e.g.,processmodelofwriting,
to
a
common
to
&
Molinari,
Baker,
model),
argument
provide
language,
(Lund,
2007).
diagrams
Sjourn,
andorganizing
tomake
Studentsin thegraphfordebatingconditionsimply facilitate
acquiring
knowledge,
andto construct
a research
referred
to theirown graphsto supporttheirargu- empirical
predictions,
prothat
a
We
think
research
for
the
to
each
determine
areas
ments,
gram.
studyof
program
leadingup having
dyad
andlearning
ofargumentative
ofagreement
and disagreement.
In thegraphforrep- theteaching
readingand
benefit
from
such
structures.
chat
debate
in
students
condition,
writing
might
explanatory
resenting
engaged
most
the
contribution
followed
the
ofthis
to
Perhaps
dyadarguments
significant
byusing diagram represent
theirarguments,
is
the
of
to
identification
areas
perspective
specificcognitive
leadingup determining
ofagreement
and disagreement.
inthegraph skillsnecessaryforargumentation.
Students
As Kuhn (2005)
fordebating
condition
weremorelikely
toidentify
con- posited,"weneedtoknowfairly
whata cogniprecisely
associated
with
the
if
different
tive
skill
is
we
to
teach
it
or
create
the
conditions
flicting
opinions
arguhope
mentsthanwerestudents
inthegraphforrepresentingforitsdevelopment"
Without
the
theoretical
and
(p. 12).
286

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thecognitive
workwithin
empirical
perspective,
literacy weremorepersuasively
powerfulthanthosewritten
researchers
and teacherswouldnothave"roadmaps" bysuburbanstudents,
whichshe attributed
to differin
ences
habitus
constituted
class
and
race
differforthe"patterns,
and
are
that
by
sequences,
endpoints"
fordegreesof
valuedelements
ofintellectual
life(Kuhn,2005,p. 196). ences.Andersonalsoanalyzedtheletters
thatis,thedegreeto whichthewriter
is
This orientation
towardthestudyofwhatargumenta- centeredness,
oraudience-centered,
class
difa muchneed- self-centered
tiveskillsareandhowtheydevelopoffers
reflecting
in thetwodifferent
and discoursesoperating
materials ferences
ed extensionto themyriadofprofessional
In thenextsection,we examinearguthatcall forteachingand socialcontexts.
andpublicpolicystatements
mentative
andwriting
froma socialperspective.
and
skills
without
reading
specifythinking reasoning
learning
ingwhattheseskillsare,howtheyarelearned,andhow
toimprove
instruction.
totheap- Research on
therearea number
oflimitations
However,
Argumentative
as
ofthecognitive
One limitation,
perspective.
plication
and
inthe1980s(R. Beach Reading
researchers
articulated
WritingWithin
bywriting
& Bridwell,
1984),is thatthisperspective
underrepre- a Social Perspective
the
sentsthesocialand culturalcontextsconstituting
theexploraas a socialpracticeconstitutes
Argument
texts
of
and
reading writing argumentative (Evensen, tionand advancement
ofknowledge:An idea is put
fails forth,
2002;Nystrand,
2006).The cognitive
perspective
and
is offered,
a disputeensues,a newhypothesis
of
rhetoritoconsiderhowstudents'
social,
knowledge
anoldprobandothers
consider
thenscholars,
students,
in a certainsocial lemfroma new
cal,and powerdynamicsoperating
is also about
Argument
perspective.
offorthequalityoreffectiveness
context
caninfluence
as
well
as
and
occurring
persuasion,
discovery clarity
ofper- in whatBereiter
socialconstruction
mulating
through
arguments
and Scardamalia(2006)calleddesign
sonaorethos,gainingaudienceidentification
(Burke, mode,as distinct
frombeliefmode.Whereasdiscourse
consti- in beliefmodeis
1969),orvoicingofcertaindiscourses,
practices
concernedwithaccepting
ultimately
socialcontexts
(Moje & Lewis,2007). orrejecting
particular
tuting
an idea,discoursein designmodeis conofa previousstudy cernedwithdeveloping
Forinstance,in a replication
ideasintotheories,
inventions,
ofcollegestudents'
comprehension
processesofargu- plans,and so forth,
solutions
to
designedto formulate
mentative
texts(Haas & Flower,1988),Haswelland problems.
in
is thekeycriterion
Whereasjustifiability
students
withan beliefmode,promisingness
- thedegreetowhichtheocolleagues(1999)foundthatproviding
textwithwhichtheywereengagedand ries,inventions,
havesomepotentiargumentative
plans,and so forth
ofthe alityintermsofuptake
- is thepivotalissuein design
resultedin stronger
interested
comprehension
textthanwasthecase intheoriginalstudy.This find- mode.Much formaleducationis conductedin belief
ofso- mode (e.g.,arguments
toarguefortheimportance
beliefsforthe
aboutcompeting
ingledtheresearchers
cialcontextshapingargumentative
inarguments),
thewaybelief
practices(Haswell sakeofengaging
although
muchofthisresearch
etal.,1999).Although
declaration
employed is dealtwithmayrangefromauthoritative
controlled
intheworkworld,design
experimental
designsthatallowedforanaly- to critical
analysis.However,
different
factors modepredominates,
sis ofand generalizations
regarding
giventheneedtouse discourseto
and
solutions
(Calfee& addresspractical
reading writing
shapingargumentative
problems
leadingtotangible
studiesraises oroutcomes.
thisuseofexperimental
Chambliss,
2011),
inthattheymaycreateartiissuesofecologicalvalidity
and
ideasin speeches,essays,articles,
Well-argued
inconsistent
withthecomplex- position
contexts
ficialrhetorical
andunderstanding
to
papersbringsignificance
inreadingandwriting. an issueforthepurposeofsolving
involved
ityofsocialcontexts
problems.
Argument
ofmuchcognitiveprocessing and debatealso bringpeopleand theirideasintoconAnotherlimitation
on compre- tactwithone anotherto makesenseofnewideasand
researchis thatithas focusedprimarily
textsas opposedto theeffects experiences
as wellas in disagreement.
hendingorproducing
collaboratively
intermsofdialogicorcollab- Putanother
offraming
theargument
argueaboutsports,
way,peoplecontinually
theuse oftextsto achieve politics,
orative
interaction
to
andotheraspects
travel
routes
work,
involving
religion,
rhetorical
contextinvolv- ofdailylife.In business,peopleargueoverfees,wages,
socialactionin an authentic
basedon audience and proposalsforconducting
workandjob specificaingactualconsequencesforwriters
the
most
is
that
feedback.
In
over
tions.
law,
Perhaps
cognitive
significant
people argue
legalinterpretations
in so- andtheconstitutionality
ofa law.In academicresearch,
doesnotaccountforhowdifferences
perspective
resultindifferent
notionsofvalued scholarsargueoverhypotheses,
ciocultural
contexts
theses,and evidence.
are
other
Of
there
For
Diane
Anderson
course,
placesandinstitutions
many
practices. example,
argumentative
andsoin
Within
socialsettings
which
occurs.
the
written
urban
students
found
that
letters
(2008)
arguing
by
for
ofsocialpractices
therearea variety
to theirprincipalregardingschool improvements cialinstitutions,

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

287

in arguing,
withdistinctive
groundrulesfor is oftenthecase in sportstalk.Yet,thesocialpractices
engaging
forinstance,
thesocialpracticesfor ofargumentative
successorfailure;
in academicsetreadingand writing
about
a
soccer
team's
chances
to
win
nation's
(i.e.,scholars
arguing
tingsare also aboutsocialrelationships
ina sportsbararediffer- to each other,scholarsto therestoftheworld),social
theWorldCup amongpatrons
entfromthesocialpractices
forarguingaboutwhether institutions
academicresearch),
(i.e.,highereducation,
a particular
genotypeis associatedwitha particular andcultural
ideologies(e.g.,whatcountsas knowledge,
inzebrafish.
whatis valued,whatcountsas reason).In bothinformal
phenotype
in contexts,
Giventhisvariation
suchas sportsbarsandmoreformal
academic
adoptinga social settings
the
social
practiceviewof argumentative
readingand writing settings,
understanding appropriate
practictherefore
differs
fromwhathas been a primary
focus es forengagingin an argument
is important,
because
ofmuchpreviousresearchon thecomponentsofan thosewhodo notfollow
theappropriate
practice
maybe
the
text
structures
and
viewed
as
outsiders
and
become
McCann,
1989),
argument
(e.g.,
marginalized.
& Anderson,2002;Yeh,
stratagems
(e.g.,Reznitskaya
Adoptinga social practicesperspectiveshiftsa
1998),andthecognitive
processesinvolvedin arguing researcher's
analyticfocusto examininghowuses of
and learningto argue(e.g.,Kuhn,1991,2005).Much, language,texts,genres,persona/ethos,
discourses,
on argumentative and imagesas toolsin socialcontexts
serveto achieve
althoughnotall,ofthescholarship
has treatedargumentation
as if certainrhetorical
readingand writing
goals.The socialpracticesperspectherewerea relatively
consistent
setofcognitive
andlin- tiveadoptsan ecological
onhowthesetools
perspective
thatdefineaneffective
construction
ofcontexts.
guisticskillsandprocesses
argu- mediateunfolding,
evolving
incontexts.
mentregardless
ofvariation
there In theircritiqueoftraditional
rhetorical
modelsbased
Although
hasbeenrecognition
thattheremaybe different
and delivwaysof on invention,
arrangement,
style,memory,
inargument
1996;vanEemerenetal., ery,Priorand colleagues(2007)positedtheneed to
(Berrill,
engaging
writ- add mediation(i.e.,howdigital,genre,and discourse
2002),different
waysofteachingargumentative
distribution
2010;Ramage,Bean,& Johnson,
2007; practices
ing(Andrews,
(i.e.,how
shapetextproduction),
kindsof textsaredisseminated
within
andacrosscertain
Toulmin,Rieke,& Janik,1984),and different
groups
textschemes(Waltonet al., 2008),to date ornetworks),
and reception(i.e.,howtextmeaningis
argument
therehasbeenlittleattention
toviewing
and audienceswithincertain
argumentativeconstructed
by writers
and
a
set
as
of
social
that
activities
and
reading writing
practices vary object-driven
ecologies).ForPrioret al.,
acrossandwithinsocialinstitutions
andsocialsettings arguments
as mediatedsocialactionrefers
to thefact
consistent
withliteracy
that
action
and
are
distributed
over
timeand
practice(Barton,2007;Street,
cognition
or
situated
theories
&
and
and
environments
1995)
(Lave Wenger, space
learning
amongpeople,artifacts,
framesorfields
and,thus,also laminatedas multiple
1991).
As socialpractices,
and
writin
that
coexist
In
argumentative
reading
anysituatedact. activity,
peopleare
aboutwin- notonlysocialized(i.e.,brought
intoalignment
with
ingarenotviewedas solelyornecessarily
withwarrants
andevidence.Thatis, others)as theyappropriate
culturalresources
butalso
ningan argument
is notnecessarily
as theirparticular
historiargument
just aboutreasoningand individuated
appropriations
rhetoric.
as socialpractices,
read- callyaccumulate
toforma particular
individual.
Rather,
argumentative
areaboutbuildingsocialrelationships
and individuation,
socialingandwriting
Throughappropriation
andconnections
to socialinstitutions
basedon adopt- izationalso opensup a spaceforculturalchange,fora
cultural
ordiscourses.
Suchprac- personalization
ofthesocial (Prioret al, 2007).Given
ingcertain
ideologies
ticesareheldnotonlyinthemindsofa groupofpeople thisredefinition
ofcontext,
researchers
thenexamine
butarealso inthematerial
and
how
students
learn
to
transfer
uses
of
structure,
space,
orgaliteracy
practices
nizationofa particular
event(cf.Bloomeetal., acrossdifferent,
oftencompetingeventsor spacesto
literacy
about achievepositivereceptionand uptake.Forexample,
2005;Pennycook,
2010).Forexample,arguments
whether
has
a
better
in
soccer
team
the
World
whenlargenumbersofEgyptians
Spain
arguedfortheneed
than
Brazil
a
at
bar
can
infor
their
head
of
state
to
Cup
amongpatrons sports
resign,theyweredrawingon
volveclaims,warrants,
and evidence,butthepointof previously
and
similararguments
developed
by the
theargument
is notsimplyin winningbutin theen- Tunisianpeople,arguments
mediatedby social netandexcitement
thatcomesfromthesolidar- working
toolsformassdistribution
ofthesearguments.
gagement
of
soccer
teams.
This
raises
the
as
to
how
thesemediatedsoity recognizing
great
question
in
at
an
academic
conference
is
some
cial
were
in
Arguing
ways
practices
acquired waysthatledtocultural
nodifferent:
The structuring
ofturn-taking
intheargu- changeacrossdifferent
spaces.
mentation
is moreformal(e.g.,paperpresentation
folItis important
tonotethatapproaching
argumentalowedbydiscussants
andquestions),
andtheemphasis tivereadingandwriting
as socialpractices
is nottodeny
on convincing
warrants
cannotbe takenforgranted,
as theroleofcognitive
and linguistic
processesinvolved
288

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ina role-play
inargumentative
usesofstrategies
writing
RichardBeachand Anson(1988)arguedthat
activity,
formuweremorelikely
to simply
highschoolstudents
to audiences,
latetheirpositionswithlittlereference
theirpowhereascollegestudents
were,priorto stating
reference
traits
to
morelikely
toinitially
sitions,
attempt
or statusthattheysharedwiththeiraudienceto gain
toas audienceidentification.
whatBurke(1969)referred
also meansthat
of
audience
aware
perspectives
Being
counteraremorelikelyto considerpotential
students
In a
their
audiences.
be
voiced
that
could
by
arguments
uses
of
writers'
and
of
novices'
expert
study
descriptive
were
students
structures,
secondary
complexargument
as claimsorreservamorelikelyto employarguments
Theoretical Perspectives Shaping
weremorelikely
tions,whereasadultorexpertwriters
the Social Perspective on Research
rebuttals
as wellas
as countered
to employarguments
on ArgumentativeReading and Writing
conan awarenessoftherhetorical
warrants
reflecting
ofa cognitive text(Crammond,
Overthepast 30 years,thelimitations
1998).
tofocuson socialand
ledmanyresearchers
perspective
cogstagemodelsoftenunderlying
Developmental
research nitive
culturalaspectsofcontexts,
shapingliteracy
often
research
onstudents'
writing
argumentative
in assumethat
2006)and contemporary
developments
inaredevelopmentally
(Nystrand,
students
younger
et
van
Eemeren
al,
1996;
(Berrill,
theory
argumentation
audience
of
ignoring
perspectives,
capable considering
read- variations
1996;Walton,1998),andstudiesofargumentative
audistudents'
incontexts
thatservetofoster
& Graff, enceawareness.
(Chambliss,1995;Nystrand
to
ingand writing
serves
audiences
definable
Having
2001)werecertainly
partofthisshift.Analysisofthe createa senseofcontextthatfosters
ofinner
rehearsal
as socialpracticesdrawson several
use ofargument
As Ward (2009)noted,"audience
speecharguments.
social
newrhetoric,
theoretical
different
perspectives:
which
which
providesmotivation,
providescontext,
and visualrhetoric. stimulates
analysis,
genre,dialogic/discourse
deinnerspeech,whichstimulates
writing
theseinturn.
We consider
contextualization"
motivates
which
(p. 69).
velopment,
mesForexample,analysisoffirst
graders'writing
New RhetoricTheory
famto
sages in a familymessagejournal,writing
and Audience Awareness
ilymemberswhorespondedto theirmessages,found
emphasizedthe need to thatthestudentswereable,withteacherprompting,
Althoughclassicalrhetoric
ofone's to considertheiraudiences'needs (Wollman-Bonilla,
winoverorconvinceaudiencesofthevalidity
on audience
thevalueofinstruction
a rangeofrhetorical
claimsbyemploying
strategies, 2001),suggesting
versus
Internet
of
fourth
new rhetoric(Bazerman,1994;Booth,1963;Burke, awareness.
graders'
Analysis
that
audiences
found
for
different
auwith
writers'
social
on
explicit
printwriting
relationships
1969)focuses
textualfeaturesfor
on uses of different
For instruction
diencesconstituted
bysharedbeliefsorattitudes.
students'audience
enhanced
of
texts
different
to
types
attempt gain
example,Burkedescribedhowwriters
awareness
withtheirclaimsorcause
identification
theiraudience's
2007).Studentsare also
(Karchmer-Klein,
whenaskedto
audience
their
to
consider
more
orexperisharedbeliefs,
likely
attitudes,
referencing
through
a
withthataudience. adopt reading-as-the-reader
encesto builda socialrelationship
perspective(Holliway,
to definetheirintendedand 2004).Finally,an experimental
studyof 10-year-olds
Doingso requireswriters
witheach other
their
that
found
and experiences,
actualaudiences'beliefs,attitudes,
perspectives
sharing
for
for ingroupsofthreetoprepare argumentative
thatcanbe development
writing
allychallenging
something
thatisesstudents.
helpedthemacquiresocialperspective-taking
younger
audiencecharacteristics
writ- sentialforconsidering
ofresearchon argumentative
One limitation
(Glat,
is that 2003).
perspective
ingconductedwithinthecognitive
has highResearchgroundedin thenewrhetoric
studentsin thesestudiesoftenwroteforunknownor
ofstudents'
audiencesso thattheyhad no understand- lightedtheimportance
perspective-taking
anonymous
and voicein
of
in
their
use
involved
exor
audiences'
actual
of
their
attitudes,
beliefs,
language
varying
ing
indifferaudiences
for
different
In
a
identification.
the
audiences'
to
formulating
arguments
periences gain
enstudents
To
ent
contexts.
of
help
sixth-grade
bilingual
first-year
college,
9th-grade,
12th-grade,
comparison
students
in gageinaudienceanalysis,
differences
and graduatestudents'developmental
comparedtheirown
intheuse
variations
ofrelevant variations
audiencesandtheapplication
againstadulttranslators'
understanding

inargumentation.
itis to ask,Whenpeoplesay
Rather,
thattheyare engagedin argumentative
readingand
whatis itthattheyaredoing?Howaretheydowriting,
When?Where?How aretheir
ingit?Who is involved?
actionswithinan eventrelatedto othereventsandthe
inwhichtheeventis embedded?
socialinstitution
Also,
of
social
howis whattheyaredoinga recurrent
pattern
insuchsettings?
We viewsuchquestionsas
interaction
butalsotostudies
notonlyintheirownright
important
beand
andlinguistic
ofcognitive
processes strategies,
and
suchcognitive
causethesequestionscontextualize
studiesandcannotbe takenforgranted.
linguistic

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

289

oflanguageand voicein translating

acrossdifferent Social Genre Theory
audiences(Martinez,Orellana,Pacheco,& Carbone, Use of
as socialpracticeis also mediatedby
argument
thenidentified
certainissuesthatcon- students'knowledge
2008).Students
and use ofsocialgenres,thatis,
cernedthem,identified
theiraudiences,and thenre- socialactivity
constituted
as genresystems(Bazerman,
in voicegivendifferences
hearsedvariations
in these 1994;Russell,2009,2010)thatmediateparticipation
in
forwriting
lettersto actual socialworldsbyproviding
audiences,in preparation
certainprototypical
waysof
audiences.Aftercompleting
studentsadopted actingandbeing,withspacesconstituting
drafts,
as
argument
therolesoftheirintended
audiencesandprovided
social
Social
therefore
a
role
peer
practice.
genres
play key in
intermsofthequalityofarguments
feedback
andways fostering
transfer
acrossmultiple
contexts
as a formof
toimprove
thearguments,
forexample,
the
use
through
2009).
polycontextuality
(Engestrm,
ofvoice.
Genresofargumentative
also servetoorgawriting
of
the
students'
letters
nize
and
indicated
that
standardize
basedon shared
Analysis
writing
practices
thestudents
wereableto shifttheiruse ofvoicerela- knowledgeofgenreconventions
designedto achieve
in audience.Forexample,in writ- certainuptake.For example,Sheehy(2003) studied
tiveto differences
whowrotea composite
letter
to
one student,Christina, middleschoolstudents
ingto schooladministrators,
employedif-thenconditional
syntaxto adopta voice theirschoolboardtoargueagainstclosingtheirschool.
forcesat work:centriporethosassociatedwithmakinggeneralcausalclaims She examinedtwocompeting
forcesofstandardization
versuscentrifuabouttheschoolsystem,
as wellas a senseofadminis- etal,unifying
to standardization
basedon competing,
trators'
concerns
withtestscores:
galchallenges
diverseperspectives.
The standardization
forcesinI'msureifourschool
forschool
gotmore
money
supplies, volvedtheteacher's
directinstruction
offormalist
modstudents
would
concentrate
more
andgetbetter
testscores. els and
and thestudents'uses of
conventions,
genre
IftheDistrict
moremoney
andsupplies, thosemodelsandconventions
gaveschools
topulltogether
competthestudents
would
andpayattention
trytostayinschool
alternative
ideasintoa cohesivetext.Atthesame
ing,
andgetbetter
testscores.
etal.,2008,
(Martinez
p.427)
wereentertaining
a rangeofalternative
time,students
the
idea
that
theschoolboard
perspectives,
including
In contrast,
whenaddressing
a classmate,
Christina
ad- would
their
because
as students,
simplyignore
plea,
opteda morepersonalvoiceassociatedwithherown theyhadlittleagencyinthecommunity.
"WhenI don'teatinlunchornutripersonalbehavior:
To bolstertheirrhetorical
thestudents
reagency,
tion'causethefood'snasty,
I don'tdo myworkandmy casttheir
informal
oral
talk
into
more
forexploratory,
homework"
(p. 427).Shealsoaddressedherclassmates malwritten
withwritten
proseconsistent
speechgenre
ina moreinformal
manner:
"Don'tyouthinkourschool conventions.
As thestudentsworked,
theteacherenneedstochangebecauseit'suglyandpoor?"(p. 428).
diverse
alternative,
couragedthemtoentertain
perspecTakenas a whole,thesestudiesgrounded
inthenew tives:thecentrifugal
forceleadingtorevision,
as wellas
rhetoric
offer
evidence
thatthedegreetowhichstudents genretoolsleadingthestudents
to organizeand focus
considertheiraudienceinfluences
theirmo- theirideasfortheirfinalspeechas consistent
seriously
withtheir
tivationto formulate
effective
ofboardmembers'knowledge
and needs.
arguments(Miller& perceptions
formulation
oftheirarguCharney,2007;Sheehy,2003;Ward,2009).Students The students'collaborative
also
be
more
motivated
to
write
for
ment
to
not
their
close
school
was
mediated
may
peers,particbytheir
in
those
other
than
for
their
In
teacher.
shared
of
social
of
Further
classes,
ularly
knowledge
genres argument.
a comparative
of
Israeli
seventh
writresearch
needs
to
examine
how
of
analysis
graders
knowledge specific
forU.S. peers,the genrefunctions
toorganizecollaborative
ingfortheirteachersversuswriting
argumentative
forpeerswassuperior
tothatofwriting
basedon sharedperceptions
fortheir writing
ofsocialpractices.
writing
intermsofmoreclearly
teachers
sentences
connecting
arounda mainidea(Cohen& Riel,1989).Students
may Dialogic/Discourse Analysis Theory
alsobe moremotivated
whentheycan definetheirrole Anothertheoretical
perspective
analysisof
informing
orethosintermsofthedemandsofhavingto change argument
as socialpracticesis dialogictheoryrelated
theiraudiences'statusquo beliefs,particularly
when todouble-voicing
different
discourses
orworldviews
as
thestudents
areengagedin collective
withaudiences
activity
(Spartz, a toolforbuildingsocialrelationships
withcollegestudentswhowereem- (Bakhtin,
2010).Interviews
1981,1986).Gainingaudienceidentification
written
to
foster
as
of
a
for
one's
orcauseinvolves
theability
todoubleploying
arguments
change part
position
servicelearning
courserevealedthatthestudents
were voicelanguageordiscourses
inwaysthatspeaktothose
motivated
to construct
an activistcivicidentity/ethosaudiences.Perhapsthemostwell-known
exampleof
their
commitment
to
via
is
Martin
Luther
given
makingchange (Crisco, argumentation double-voicing
call
for
social
in
his
"I
Have
a
Dream"
2009).
KingJr.'s
justice
290

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Forexample,in herethnographic
elementsoftheU.S. and immigration.
speechusingdreammetaphors,
canadopt analysisofarguments
ina working-class
Student
andbiblicalreferences.
bar,Lindquist
Constitution,
stances
student
an
doctoral
that
as
academic,
double-voicing
language
(2002)
through
argumentative
reported
defined
Brooks
or
what
Karen
discourses
in
certain
class-based
the
who
worked
bar,
(2011)
parodies
through
ofdigitalandpopularculturetexts. ofschoolingshapedcustomers'
as thereaccenting
and herownassumpas a socialpractice tionsaboutthenatureofargumentation
Uses ofdialogicdouble-voicing
within
thissowith
audiforbuildingsocial,intertextual
customers
her
For
cial
context.
relationships
instance, working-class
ences(Bakhtin,1981;Bloomeet al, 2009)suggestthe framed
therealworldof
theirarguments
byreferencing
from
students
of
inopposition
towhat
actionsandexperiences
focusing everyday
away
importance shifting
theirownclaimsto attending theyperceivedto be hertheoretic,
on formulating
primarily
academic,speculacommit- tive,what-if
claimsas wellas garnering
totheiropponents'
positionsassociatedwithschooling.As a
the
mentsfromtheiropponentsregarding validityof result,
togainheraudience'sidentification
herattempts
students'claims.Althoughsomeresearchers
(Felton, forherwhat-if
oftenfailedgiventheaudiarguments
2004;Felton& Herko,2004;Kuhn& Crowell,inpress; ence'sadherence
discourses.
toreal-world
Kuhn,Goh, Iordanou,& Shaenfield,2008;Kuhn &
and
havealso examinedhowstudents
Researchers
research
us- teachers
theirintervention
Udell,2003)do notframe
on
contexts
rhetorical
construct
bydrawing or
successes
consistent
their
rather
Bakhtinian
theory,
andgenres.
ing
priorlanguage,discourses,
double-voicing
to To
inattending
tosupport
withefforts
earlyadolescents
how
(2002)described
analyzethisprocess,Lunsford
claimsand premisesthrough
an opponent's
engaging studentsand instructors
in a collegesummerwriting
Forexample, coursefor
inactivedialoguesuggest
double-voicing.
adoptedandrepresenthighschoolstudents
whenUth gradersengagingin dialoguearguments ed theToulmin
as well
model
ofargument
(1958/2003)
use ofa graph as howtheinstructors
instructions
weregivenexplicit
through
and students
writing
negotiated
thedifferent
toidentify
aspectsoftheirownandothers' taskswitheach other.Studentsin theclass wrotearweremorelikelyto attendtotheir
claims,thestudents
ofthe
thefiveelements
essaysemploying
gumentative
claims
(Felton& Herko,2004).
opponents'
Toulminmodel:claims,reasons,evidence,warrants,
howdiscoursesmediatetheconstruc- and
In defining
andteachStudents
acknowledgments/responses.
eventsshapinga
ofclassroom
tionorgrounding
literacy
the
and contesting
ers werecontinually
negotiating
adolescent
writer,
Kari,inherargumentative
Norwegian
in
their
terms
Toulmin's
of
discussions,
key
of meanings
aboutmusic,Evensen(2002)positeda theory
writing
howthemeaningofclaims
forexample,byconsidering
claimsoperate
doubledialogue,inwhichhere-and-now
a paper
is relatedtotheconceptofpointfororganizing
builds
oftheeventthatintertextually
as theforeground
also
Students
research
solution
for
or
goals.
identifying
in
onpriordialoguesorvoices.Thus,Kariwaswriting
the
for
of, example,
conceptions
relation- drewon theirprevious
constituted
context
a classroom
byherpositive
one'stopicas opposedto
audiencewhowas idea ofpointas announcing
as a supportive
shipwithherteacher
in
as
a seriesofpointsserving
the
course
point
defining
folkmusic.At
familiar
withthetopicofKari's writing,
well
as
theideathatpointsdo
as
to
arguments,
organize
within
the
shewasalsowriting
thesametime,however,
need
tobe contestable.
as
than
more
topics, they
identify
normsconsticontext
ofinstitutionalized
background
thattheinstrucrevealed
Lunsford
's
(2002)analysis
literate
culture"(p. 397) as wellas
tuting"Norwegian
as an
model
to
students
the
Toulminian
tors
presented
herpeeradolescentculturethatpreferred
hip-hopto
of
a
of
dynamic,evolvingsystem writing
part
folkmusic.DoubledialoguethusprovidedKariwitha integral
themodelbecamealigned
In thissystem,
thechallengeofgainingidentifi- instruction.
meanstounderstand
figcationwithherstanceon folkmusic.To gainherpeers' withand mediatedbycertaintexts,authoritative
readers
a
and
ures,
vocabulary
writing
by
specialized
of
a
value
the
ofherpositionregarding
identification
The analysis
knownas contestability.
certaintypeoffolkmusic,shedrewon priorlanguage, and a criterion
and
that
these
showed
also
alignments expectations
andgenresthat"'ringatthebackofoursodiscourses,
as participants
conflicted
mappedone
cialminds'(Evensen,2001a)as voicesand intertextual occasionally
another.For
onto
terms
of
Toulmin's
reification
sharedexpeas background
key
allusions"(p. 404)serving
as to what
notions
had
students
herclaims,a social example,
conflicting
rienceswithpeersthatforeground
on
to
draw
them
constituted
claims,requiring
herrhetorical
inquiry/
knowledgeof
practicethatrepresents
heuristicpracticesto examinetheirwritingaccordwiththosepeers.
priorinteractions
stu- ingto meaningslocaltothesocialcontextoftheclass.
or reaccenting,
To engagein double-voicing
havediffiitis oftenassumedthatstudents
dentsmustalso be awareof tensionsbetweenand Although
foundthatstuLunsford
orgenresthat cultydetermining
within
warrants,
discourses,
competing
languages,
claimsand
as dentshad moredifficulty
foraudienceidentification,
thepotential
undermine
distinguishing
inarguments
onissuesofabortion,
reflected
gayrights, data,inthat
Readingand Writing:A Reviewof Research
Teachingand LearningArgumentative

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

291

daimsareheavily
co-constructed
andthattheequation
betweena claimandthesisstatement
mustbe negotiated.
...
insteadofisolating
warrants
as theproblem,
thisanalysis
thatitwouldbe better
tounderstand
howall of
suggests
theseelements
arecontinually
redefined,
(pp.161-162)

foundthatthesupportive
teacher's
feedback
tothestudentsnotonlyservedto foster
thetheirwillingness
to
butalsoreflected
engageineffective
argument
presuppositionsaboutimpliedreaderswithinthetraditions
ofwriting
in Norwegianschoolsand theinstitutional
normsoperating
withintheschool.This includesanalStudiessuchas Lunsfors(2002)thatreflect
a social
ofthetypesofassignments
orgenresoperating
in
ysis
raisesignificant
practice
perspective
questionsregardschoolwriting
as "sociocultural
norms
that
Norwegian
to identify
and assessuses ofToulmin's
ingattempts
thestudents'
andteachers'
ofwhat
interpretation
claim-reason-warrant
based on standard- guide
strategies
is expectedofa schoolcomposition
and
more
specifiorrubrics,as theseefforts
fail
ized,objectivecriteria
whatcountsas a 'personalessay'as opposedto a
to capturemeaningsspecificto thecontext.Analysis cally
'pragmatic
analysis'"(p. 422).
ofthesecontested,
negotiated
meaningssuggeststhat
Smidt (2002) analyzedthe developmentof two
classroom
contexts
theideaoftop-downapchallenge
students
overa two-year
periodintermsoftheiradopsuchas Toulmin's
plicationsofmodelsofargument
tionofdiscourserolesand positionings
(Ivani,1998)
model,whoseconceptswerecontinually
beingrede- as
varied
their
in
stances
theirroles
they
adopting
finedand contestedgiventheparticularsofa classdifference
in
audiences
and
rhetorical
contexts.
roomcontext.
Giventhecentrality
oftransfer
ofsocial given
He foundthatthestudents
themselves
acpositioned
acrossdifferent
Lunsforsanalysis
contexts,
practices
tothesocialpractices
of
in
school
for
a
cording
writing
thatstudents
arecontinually
suggests
recontextualizingteacher,
a positioning
that
differed
from
in
nonwriting
uses ofargumentative
literacy
practicesforengaging schoolcontexts.
The students'
teacherreciprocated
by
different
audiencesindifferent
contexts
social
through
certainpositionsbasedon hisperceptions
of
adopting
fromtheiraudiences
practiceas theyreceivefeedback
theindividual
students
andthenormsoperating
in
the
& Carbonaro,
Gamoran,
(Ivani,1998;Nystrand,
2001). schoolcontext.

studentsalso
interaction,
Throughthisreciprocal
The Use of Student-Teacher Reciprocal,
learntoconstruct
or
roles
persona
designedtoestablish
ethosto provideaudienceswitha senseofcredibility
Dialogic Interactions
Centralto a social practicesperspectiveis the as- andbelievability
1986).Students'abilityto
(Nystrand,
that
students
construct
and
ethos
sumption
acquireargumentative
literacy
persona
dependson havinga clear
active
in
intersense
of
their
practices
beliefs,
through
participation dialogic
goals,norms,andcommunalvalactions.Dialogictheories
ofargument
as socialpractice ues operating
ina certainrhetorical
context
ordomain.
the
value
of
transfer
of
collaborative
interacthese
and
oral,
posit
beliefs,
Adopting
goals,norms, valuesthemovertimeto foster
thestudent
tions,unfolding
to assumethatpersonaor
voicingofcompet- selvesmotivates
rival
on
an
to
role
based
on
rolemodelsor mentors.
issue, argumentative
For
ing,
perspectives
emulating
Withina socialpractices
transfer example,a student
believesthattheschoolis failing
to
writing.
perspective,
occurswhenthequalityoftheseoralstudent-teacher serveenoughhealthy
foodoptionsintheschoolcafeteandstudent-peer
interactions
devel- ria,presupposing
thelarger
valuesoffostering
a healthy
supportstudents'
of
and sense lifestyle.
The student
thenformulates
a goalofchangopment voice,stances,discourses,
genres,
ofaudience.
attitudes
the
ingtheschooladministration's
regarding
Lunsfors(2002)researchhas pointedto theim- statusquo byrecognizing
thenormthatstudents
have
student- lesspowerthanadministrators,
themtoadopt
portanceofthesocialpracticeofsupportive
requiring
teacherand student-peerinteractions
in fostering anethosofa knowledgeable
student
committed
tomakandwriting.
Basedonresponses ingchange.
argumentative
reading
totheirwriting,
students
learntovarytheir
These perceptionsare constructedover time
elementary
use oflanguageregister
as a toolforwriting
forofficial through
betweenstudents
dialogicinteraction
engaged
versusunofficial
audiences(Dyson,2008).Students in collaborative
problemsolvingdesignedto address
learnto adoptmoreformal,
resonantvoices(Elbow, certainissues (van Eemeren& Grootendorst,
2004;
ofthetraditional
2000) or discoursalvoices(Ivani,1998)throughin- Walton,1998,2007).One limitation
teractions
withteacher-modeled
uses ofthesevoices one-shotpersuasiveessayassignment
is thatthereis
thandenigrate
informal littleongoingdevelopment
ofarguments
andcounter(Lee,2007)thatbuildonrather
voicesandencourage
students
tovoicebeliefscontrary arguments
such
surrounding
writing
essays;students
tothoseespousedintextsorbytheteacher(Gorzelsky, haveno reasonto explorecounterarguments,
because
often
do
not
receive
2009).
from
they
counterarguments the
Forexample,in hisanalysisoftwostudents'
teacher
have
and,therefore, noreasonfordoingso.This
argumentative
in
a
Smidt
rhetorical
contextcontrasts
school,
withengagingin
writing Norwegian
(2002) limiting
292

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

collaborative
reasoning(R. Andersonet al.,2001)that falsein Cl, thenA is alsotrueorfalsein C2. As a third
involveswhatNussbuamand Schraw(2007)defined example,
theappealtoexpertopinionargument
isthat,
as argument-counterargument

in
that
is
an
a
A
related
to
claim
integration
through given
expert subject
that

that
A
is
A
the
merits
of
and
asserts
claim
true
or
then
false,
weighing
competingpositions,refuting
or
and
be
taken
to
be
true
or
false.
as
false
toward
arguments
unsupported, moving
may
Thesevariousargumentative
schemescan be used
somerecommended
orsolution.Examining
synthesis
in
the
classroom
to
focus
as
a
interaction
that
help
analysison particular
recognizes
arguments dialogic
in
of
mostarguments
occurthrough
throughrepresenting
arguments
disagreementsevery- types arguments
(Felton& Kuhn,2001).As previously and thenposingcriticalquestionsabouteach ofthe
dayconversation
noted,althoughresearchers
adoptinga collaborative premisesassociatedwithcertaintypesofarguments.
reasoningapproach(e.g.,Jadallahet al., 2011)may Forexample,theappeal to expertopinionschemeis
that is credibleas an expert,
is
their basedon thepremises
frame
theirstudieswithina cognitive
perspective,
attention
tosocialandlinguistic
processesalsoprovides an expertinthefieldrelatedtoA and actuallyasserted
withotherexperts,
inclassroom
contexts
fos- A, is a reliablesource,is consistent
intohowinteractions
insights
andis basingA on evidence(Waltonetal.,2008).
terargument
as socialpractice.
Researchershave also foundthatknowledgeof
toWalton(1998,2007),therulesforparAccording
forargumentative
these
six
in
interactions
to
these
purposes
dialogicinteractions
varyaccording
ticipating
at
an
has
its
of
with
the
different
of
origins
earlyage.Ehrlichand Blum-Kulka
goal
types dialogue:persuasion
an issue,inquiry
withthegoalof (2010)analyzedpreschoolers'
orclarifying
peertalkin naturalinterresolving
that
actions
to
demonstrate
with
the
or
a
veryyoungstudentsmay
negotiation
proving disprovinghypothesis,
examine
narrative
of
with
information
of
a
events,
employ
reports playground
seeking
goal achievingsettlement,
instructions
on
how
toplaya
word
with
deliberation
thegoal ofexchanging
definitions,
information,
provide
to
or
discuss
an
issue
from
different
of
and
thebestcourse action,
thegoalofdetermining
perspectives
game,
when
a
narrative
is
construct
as
reasonsfora
eristic
withthegoalofrevealing
employed
arguments,
underlying
thesedifferent
conflict.
argutypesofdialoguemay tomakea claim.An analysisoftwopreschoolers'
Although
Pokmonstickers,
for
thepurposesfor mentsintradingand bargaining
involvesomeformofargumentation,
a
sticker
that
refusal
one
to
todifferent
by
give
varyaccording
goals.Forexam- instance,revealed
arguments
intheuse ofarguments
in a deliberation
to addressan issuemay to theotherresulted
involving
ple,engaging
as wellas addressing
tojudge appealstothird-party
withoutanyattempts
involvebrainstorming
participants
dethevalidity
ofcompeting
claims,whereasengagingin eachotherinthethirdperson,strategies
involving
the
use
social
and
ethos.
a
to
involves
relationships
Through
fining
proponent
attempting prove
persuasion
that ofpeertalk,
thevalidity
ofa claimwithrespondents
challenging
validity.
childrenneed to internationally
displaymoreorlessexplicForWalton(1998,2007),analyzingargumentative
itlytheirviewpointsor positions.As a result,theybecome
a proponent'sspecific
dialogueinvolvesidentifying
moreequippedwiththemeansto argueand thinkforemost
reactsto thosemovesin
movesand howa respondent
withintheirown social and culturalpeermilieuand probfromthe
whichbothareseekingcertaincommitments
2010,
ablyin othercontextsas well.(Ehrlich& Blum-Kulka,
thepootherbasedon accepting
premisesunderlying
p. 226)
are definedas partners'
sitions.These commitments
in dialogic
differences
To examinedevelopmental
explicit
voicingofacceptanceofthesepremisesas opbasedon Walton's(1998,2007)focuson how
posed to partners'beliefsthatmaynotbe explicitly argument
stated.Once eitherpartneracceptsthesepremises,a goalsdrivearguments,
Feltonand Kuhn (2001)coma claimwiththegoalof paredseventhand eighthgraders'and youngadults'
can thenformulate
proponent
therespondent
commit
toagreeing
tothatclaim, arguments
in dyadsovera periodoffiveto sixweeks.
having
ortheproponent
can challengethepremisesunderly- Basedon codingofthegoalsadoptedinthedialogues,
claims(Felton& Kuhn, theresearchers
alternative
foundthatthemiddleschoolstudents
ingtherespondent's
theirgoals in the
wereless strategicin formulating
2001).
whoemployed
accordwere
the
adults
Itis alsothecasethattheseexchanges
than
vary
young
dialogues
schemes
In
to
the
middleschool
to
certain
(Walton
prototypical
argument
ing
counterarguments.comparison
frompositive students,
theyoungadultswerealso twiceas likelyto
et al.,2008),forexample,theargument
inwhicha proponent
consequences,
adoptstheprem- engagein morerebuttalsand definetheirpartners'
will claimsin a mannerthatservedtoweakenthoseclaims.
isethatifA is adopted,thenpositive
consequences
occurand henceA shouldbe adopted.As a second FeltonandKuhnnotedthatthemiddleschoolstudents
between
fromanalogyis that,giventhe maynothavea clearsenseofthedifferences
example,theargument
versus
A
of
a
and
is
true
or
the
case
Cl
is
similar
to
that
C2,
goal underminingpartner'sargument
premise

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

293

thegoalofundermining
thepartner's
ona Ningdiscussion
forum.
Students
specificclaimby pro-conarguments
ofandcritiquing
it.The research- double-voiceddiscoursesof school administration,
seekingclarification
ersalsonotedthatagreeing
withothers'
as op- counseling,
thelaw,adolescent
andso forth
resistance,
positions
to
was
an
to
construct
their
stances
posed simplydisagreeing
equallyimportant
(Beach & Doerrpersonas'
for
one's
in
At
the
Stevens,
argumentative
strategy enhancing
positions
press).
completionoftherole-play,
andgainingaudienceidentification.
thestudents
out
of
theirrolesanddrewon mastepped
Another
of
the
of
theoterial
from
the
interaction
to
example
application dialogic
composepositionpapers.
ryisrepresented
bytheideaofrivalhypothesis
thinking The studentswereengagedin thisproject,because
theactiveexchangeofclaimsand challenges theyknewthattheyweredeveloping
actualarguments
through
tothoseclaims(Flower,Long,& Higgins,2000).One topresent
totheschooladministration
tochangetheir
for
in
rival
school's
When
the
students
were
ableto conprimarypurpose
engaging
hypothesis
policies.
is to allowfortheopensharingofcompeting vincetheadministration
tochangethepolicies,
unblock
thinking
on an issueso thatdifferent
andallowteachers
accesstoYouTube,
perspectives
partiescan certainwebsites,
worktogether
to developsolutionsto thestudents
collaboratively
perceivedtheirworkas havingsometanthoseissues.Flower(2008)citedan exampleofhowri- gibleoutcome,an exampleofan authentic
rhetorical
valhypothesis
orrivaling,
as theparticipating context.
Thissuggests
theneedtocreateclassroom
conthinking,
adolescents
namedit,wasused to addressan attempt textsdrivenbytransfer
ofargument
inonlinerehearsal
on a neigh- contexts
toactualcontexts
withtangible
bythePittsburgh
policetoimposea curfew
consequences.
borhoodgiventheassumption
thata curfew
woulddeStudiesofonlinedigitalinteraction
raisequestions
tercrime.To challenge
theproposedcurfew,
a groupof regarding
the advantagesofemploying
theseonline
withthesupport toolsto fostercollaborative
youngpeoplefromtheneighborhood
argument.
Comparisons
ofa community
centerdevelopeda pamphlet ofthequalityofcomputer-mediated
communication
literacy
reasonswhythecurfewwouldnotdeter versusface-to-face
havegeneratedmixed
formulating
arguments
crime.Distribution
ofthepamphletto theneighbors results.One studyfoundthatalthoughthequalityof
and policeled to a discussionoftheissueamongthe arguments
was higherforface-to-face
durarguments
andpolice.Subsequently,
the ingtheexchanges,
therewas no difference
in students'
youngpeople,neighbors,
policedroppedtheplantoimposea curfew.
& Doherty,
subsequent
(Joiner,
Jones,
arguments
2008).
ForFlower(2008),a keyaspectoftheyoungpeoAn analysisof 12-year-olds'
use ofargumentative
inonline,synchronous
ple'ssuccesswastheirsenseofagencyassociatedwith strategies
chatroomdiscussions
theirwillingness
to seriously
considertheneighbors' overtimefoundthatstudents
intheirability
shifted
to
andpolice'sclaimsfortheneedfora curfew
so thatthe framearguments
&
In
2003). the
(Morgan Beaumont,
adolescents
couldthenprovide
thoughtful
counterargu- beginning,
ments.As Flowernoted,students
acquirethisdialogic
thestudents
failed
tofocus
oneither
(topersuade
purpose
to others'acts
agencythrough
collectively
responding
the
reader
to
the
writer's
accept
position)or audience (the
and voices,in termsoftheirwillingness
to "gopublic,
particularpeople you need to convince).This was writing
toengageina dialoguethatlistens,
speaks,andexpects
thatwas comingfromnowhere(fromno feltconviction)
and
a responseto whichtheyarepreparedto respond"(p.
goingnowhere(reachingoutto no readers),(p. 150)
205).
The students
thenparticipated
in chatroomdialogic
Fostering Dialogic Interaction
relatedtotheissueofsingle-sex
classrooms.
argument
in Online Contexts
The teachers
modeledtheusesofargumentative
strateAn important
factorin creating
review
oftheexchangonlineargumentativegiesandhadstudents
transcripts
contexts
is thedegreeto whichstudents
Fora later
perceivetheir es inthechatroomforuseofthesestrategies.
onlineinteractions
as shapingactualchangein status chatsessionon theissueofthenatureofthepunishas opposedtosimply
forthesake mentsthatstudentsshouldbe givenfornotwearing
quo practices,
arguing
ofarguing.
In oneofthecoauthor's
theteacherfocusedtheirattention
studies,
highschool theschooluniform,
students
in an onlinerole-play
on on adoptingalternative
andmakingcomparticipated
perspectives
activity
a socialnetworking
siteforan extendedperiodoftime promisesto movestudentsawayfromadoptingrigid,
This studypointstoteachers'
Stevens,
(R. Beach& Doerr2009).Giventheirconcern preconfigured
positions.
aboutwhattheyperceived
to be theschool'sarbitrary rolein modelingalternative
andtheneed
perspectives
others'voicesinstudents'
written
chats.
websites,
policieson blocking
theywantedto propose toincorporate
changestothosepolicies.
Analysisof24 secondarystudents'onlinecollabThe studentsadopted roles representing
com- orativewritten
chatdebatesfoundthatthestudents
chatsto formulate
arpetingstanceson whethertheirschool administra- learnedto use thecollaborative
torsshould change these policies and formulated guments,
the
of
the
varied
although quality
arguments
294

Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(Laurinen& Marttunen,
2007).In their practices,
considerably
especiallyworkconductedwithinan ethnochatdebatein 12pairs,studentsassumedtherolesof graphictradition
thatassumesliteracy,
social space,
and
as
social
this
for
and
to
formulate
identity
practices.
Although issuehas
arguments
protagonist antagonist
the
notionofidentity
that
consider
the
of
and againsteachother'spositions,
use
manycomponents,
fostering
The use ofcollab- is essentialin definingwho is makingan argument,
and counterarguments.
refutation
orative
speechactswereanalyzedintermsoftheuse of to whom,forwhatpurposes,and on whatoccasion.
concernsover
orrequests
forclarifications,
answers
toques- Leanderand McKim (2003)considered
questions
in
which
occurs
offline
interaction
as well
collaborative identity
tionsorresponsesto issues,maintaining
play,
as
online
The
difference
is
that
online
or
others'
discussion,
spaces.
space
extending summarizing
thoughts,
some
whereasnoncollaborativeprovidesvarying
andgivingpositive
offering
feedback,
degreesofanonymity,
to
How
researchers
conceive
of
others' protection participants.
speechactswereanalyzedintermsofignoring
in
online
their
the
role
of
unconnectideastofocusonone'sownideasormaking
shapes
identity
argumentation
ofempirical
claimsregarding
issuesofaufromthe warranting
ed comments.
Althoughstudentsbenefited
andthesocialrelations
thatdevelopinonline
to thenticity
collaboration,
onlyoneofthe12pairswasperceived
aboutthe
scholars
have
been
contexts.
Some
whereasmany
be employing
skeptical
sophisticated
arguments,
in
Internet
use
of
ofopinionsthatlim- authenticityidentity
ofthedebatesinvolved
(Harrington
play
expression
& Bielby,1995),whereasothershavestatedthatthere
itedthequalityofarguments.
betweenonlineand offlineidentities
One essentialsocialpracticein onlinearguments is a consistency
rhe- (Correll,
1995).In anycase,thoseofus whostudyonline
ethosina virtual,
a believable
involves
constructing
mustrealizethatconnective
ethnograsuchas SecondLife(Jamaludin,
toricalcontext,
Chee, argumentation
in
is
a
nascent
&
McKim,
2003)
(Leander
stageof
or
Our
phy
& Ho, 2009),Whyville,
QuestAtlantis,
SimCity,
development.
described
as
or
what
Courts,
persuasive
Bogost(2007)
EverQuest,
Lineage
games,suchas WorldofWarcraft,
III, whichinvolveformulating
II, orCivilization
argu- Use of Visual Rhetoric as an Argumentative
au- Social Practice
inhabitants
for
virtual
virtual
mentsonissuesfacing
ofethos We
construction
oftwostudents'
diences.Analysis
sotobe an argumentative
perceivevisualrhetoric
in onlinediscussionsfoundthathowthesestudents cial practicemediatedby multimodaluses ofdigital
inpeers'per- video,image,and musicculturaltools,forexample,
wereperceived
bypeerswasa majorfactor
ethos(Pickering,
2009).These theuse ofhip-hoporrapto framepoliticalarguments
ceptionsofthestudents'
ofethosin onlinecontextsrelatesto the thathavebothlocalandglobalresonances
perceptions
(Pennycook,
toestablishsocialpresence(Rourke,
Anderson, 2010).Researchers
havealsoexaminedtheseusesofimability
& Archer,
1999;Swan,2002)ortelepresence agesorvideosas visual,multimodal
Garrison,
withthe
rhetoric,
audience
to
&
Skalski,
socialprac2010)designed engage
(Bracken
imagesandvideosactingas argumentative
identification.
tices (Handa, 2004;Hill & Helmers,2004;Wysocki,
with Johnson-Eilola,
The degreeto whichaudiencescan interact
Seife,& Sire,2004;alsoseetheviz.webintoor "be"in a vir- site[viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/],
onlinematerial
orbe transported
whichis maintained
bythe
tualworldcan enhancesocialpresenceortelepresence DigitalWriting
of
and ResearchLab attheUniversity
in waysthatcan be used forargumentative
that
purposes. Texas).This researchchallengedtheassumption
Forexample,participants'
commentsaboutYouTube imagesas nonverbal
areincapableofbeingused
entities
what
Jacksonand Wallin (2009) forargumentative
postingsrepresent
purposes,thatis,toprovidesupportrhetoric
definedas a back-and-forth
involving
public, ivereasonsfora claim.Blair(2004)notedthatalthough
interactions
between
thesepostings
thatframe manyads aresimplyactsofpersuasion,
dialectic
inthattheydo
as a processrather
thansimplya prod- notproffer
for
a
certain
reasons
argumentation
product
any
purchasing
uct.The researchers'
documendo notconstitute
post- and therefore
analysisof35,000comment
arguments,
the
policetasinga tariesaredesignedtoformulate
ingsabouta YouTubevideoportraying
arguments
through
a speechfoundthat66%of framing
ofreasonsforsocietalproblemsin waysthat
collegestudentprotesting
a claimwitha sup- havestrong
thepostingsinvolvedformulating
resonance
withaudiences,
emotional
recoghalf
the
were
of
can
be one-dimensional,
that
visual
rhetoric
also
reason,
postings
responding
porting
nizing
and 40% ofthepostings vague,one-sided,
to otherpreviousarguments,
andincapableofmatchambiguous,
a
with
constructive
oflanguage.
and
abstraction
the
others,
represented
disagreements
ing complexity
and Wallinperceivedto be
rhetoric
also involves
reflection
ofwhatJackson
of
the
of
visual
use
Analysis
in
orreterms
of
issues
of
transfer
online,
recontextualizing,
productive,
publicarguments.
uses of printliteracies
raisesignificant mediatingand redesigning,
Studiesofonlineargumentation
usesofdigitalandvisualliteracies
thewaysin whichsocial through
issuesforresearchregarding
(Bezemer&
In
videos
and
interactions
fostersubstantive
Kress,
2008). creating
storytelling
digital
argumentative
literacy

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

295

learnto assessthepotential contextmediatedby students'uses oflanguage,disto addressissues,students

of
their
uses
ofimages,sounds,mu- courses,socialgenres,andvisualrhetoric,
rhetorical
usesshaped
uptake
the
in
students'
issues
of
concernto
and
based
on
their
about
audisic,
by
assumptions
engagement
editing
foractualaudiences,as opposedto
ofthe themand writing
ences'semioticand popularcultureknowledge
on assignedissuesforassignedorteacheraudimeaningsoftheseimages,sounds,music,and editing writing
ences.
Researchers
canthenidentify
students'
to
(Bruce,2009;Dubisar& Palmeri,
2010).
ability
socialpracticesassociatedwiththe
In proposing
theneedto integrate
traditional
print employparticular
ofethos,perspective-taking,
andnewdigitalandvisualliteracies
as parallelpedago- development
gainingaudidifferent
discourses
froma traditional enceidentification,
double-voicing
gy,Leander(2009)proposedshifting
and so forth(Prior
focusonthe"products
ofcomposition"
tocon- and stances,usesofvisualrhetoric,
essayist
totheparticular
rhetorical
demands
sider"howcertain
meta-level
processesanddimensions etal.,2007)relative
in
local
events.
ofcomposition
havepowerful
across
media"
particular,
operating
purchase
thesepracticescapture
hiscollegestudents'
use ofdigiPerhapsmostimportant,
(p. 160).In analyzing
oftheeventas opposed
talvideotoconvey
theirbigideasorclaimsthrough
the students'ownconstructions
tothedictatesofan asuseoflanguageandvideo,Leanderhadstudents
define to students'
abilityto conform
connections
betweentheuse ofcertaincameraangles signedeventin an experimental
design.Studieswithin
this
have
stuiniMovieeditingfeatures
orvisualtransitions
andthe
perspective
suggestedwaysto transfer
dents'
uses
of
social
in
oral
discussions
or
useoftransitions
orstrategies
intheirwriting
as rhetoripractices
to
construction
of
rhetorical
for
examevents,
cal moves.In makingvideodocumentaries
aboutthe reading
ofperspective-taking
in Harlem,students
effects
ofgentrification
werecon- ple,howthestudents'
acquisition
in a discussionmay
theiraudiences'knowledgeand relatedto alternative
arguments
sistently
considering
transfer
to
in
written
beliefsabouttheissueofgentrification
in conducting
perspective-takingformulating
on
this
construction
certainimages,and editingtheir arguments.
Focusing
processthena
interviews,
selecting
teachers
with
for
videos (Kinloch,2010).Othertheoristshave drawn provides
strategies creating
equallyeneventsintheirownclassrooms.
on theconceptofkairosas referring
to tensionsand gagingrhetorical
This focuson thelocaleventas theunitofanalysis
betweenthewriterand contextdocument
struggles
in termsofissuesofrelationcan
also be a limitation
thatchallengethe selectionof-relevant,
appropriate
multimodalmaterialforspecificrhetorical
contexts shipsbetweenthelocal and theglobal,giventhelack
offocuson "varioushybrids,
alliances,and multiple
Michel,& Ridolfo,
(Sheridan,
2009).
and
that
agents
agencies
simultaneously
occupyacts
The increaseduse ofvisualrhetoric
in students'
of
and
is
indeed
alive
andwell
reading
writing.
Agency
multimodal
raisestheissueof
argumentative
writing
in
and
but
it
is
not
a
solo
reading writing
performance"
whenitis oftenthe
assessingtheirmultimodal
writing
& Clinton,
The further
2002,
(Brandt
347).
p.
challenge
inevaluating
casethatcriteria
employed
argumentative
infocusing
ontheauthentic
localeventis thatstudents,
is
based.
For
in
collabprint
writing largely
example,
in hip-hop,aredouble-voicing
as reflected
globalized
multimodal
onlinetexts,
oratively
constructing
judging
texts
and
discourses
that"havegoneoutwellbeyond
theeffective
construction
ofethosassumeslessinterms
boundaries
thatmight
oncehavegenerofparticular
individual
uses oflanguage,and morein thecommunity
ated
and
contained
them"
(Moss, 2011,p. 373).All of
termsofshareduse ofdesign,layout,
andimageselecthis
the
need
to
shift
thefocusofdebateabout
suggests
tion(Warnick,
arefurther
2007).Issuesofassessment
of
and
ofethos ownership practices spacesrelatedto thelocal
complicated
bythefactthattheconstruction
arguinvisualrhetoric
ofteninvolves
col- versusglobaltoexaminehowa rangeofdifferent
multiple
producers
mentative
social
are
in
practices
employed
negotiating
ethos(Fleckenstein,
2007).
laboratively
constructing
tothestatusquo thatdrawon
instructors'
use of disputesandchallenges
Analysisoffirst-year
composition
both
the
localandtheglobal(Moss,2011),forexample,
criteria
toassessa visualrhetoric
foundthat
assignment
how
the
issue
ofillegalimmigration
is botha localand
instructors
had difficulty
criteria
ofcoheremploying
a
issue.
global
to assesstheusesofvisualcomponents,
enceorclarity
to employmoreholisticassessleadingtheinstructors
mentsbasedonaesthetic
aspectsandsubjective
impact
Conclusion and Implications
(Ferstle,
2007).

Strengthsand Limitations
of a Social Perspective

for FurtherResearch

The valueand significance

ofargumentative
reading
in thecontextsofschoolinghas beenone
and writing
ofa socialperspective
One ofthestrengths
is thatit oftheunexamined
inthestudyofliteracy
assumptions
shifts
theunitofanalysis
tothelocaleventas a rhetorical instruction.
Atone level,mostauthorsbeginwiththe

296

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thathas thepotentialto have

assumptionthatargumentative
readingand writing argumentative
writing
lead inevitably
to reasonableness
and thoughtful
con- actualuptakein changingan audience'sbeliefsoracsideration
ofa topic.Atanother
researchcould
level,weknowverylittle tions(Berland& Reiser,2009).Further
abouthowreasonableness
andthoughtfulness
in contextswithpoofwriting
develop examinetheinfluence
inclassroom
contexts
andovertime,so wehavetolook tentialactualuptakeversusno actualuptakeon differinotherfields(Prior,
toresearch
and writing
2005)ortostudiesthat encesin students'motivation
quality.We
havelimitedecologicalvalidityforK-12 and college also believethatmoreresearchneedsto focuson how
classrooms
forevidencethatreadingand writ- acquiringargument
contributes
tothedevelwriting
practices
have
the
effects
that
are
often
of
students'
civic
and
ingargumentative
writing
opment
community
engagement
students
aremorelikely
to
assumed.Perhapsmostobviousinourreviewis thatal- (Flower,2008)and whether
are
research
there
and
practices
though
programs
emphasizing
argu- acquireargumentative
reading
writing
in whichtheuse ofargument
ofargumentativewhenplacedin contexts
mentative
andthemodeling
reasoning
forchangingproblematic
statusquo,
& Anderson,
2002), has thepotential
(Kuhn,2005;Reznitskaya
reasoning
thatprovidestudentswitha
do notaddresstheteach- socialworldexperiences
theseinstructional
programs
inshapingtheirlives.
methodsinpromoting senseofthevalueofargument
er'suse ofspecificinstructional
thereis a needtoanalyzeandunderstand
ofstudents'argumentative
thedevelopment
Moreover,
reading
to
life teacherinfluences,
thatis,howteacherscontribute
ofclassroom
overtimeandthefeatures
andwriting
ofar- the developmentof a social/audiencenetworkthat
students'appropriation
thatimpedeorfacilitate
ofan argument
theappropriation
andstrategies.
supportsorthwarts
knowledge
gumentative
oftheclassroominwe havesuggestedtheneed forre- schemawithinthesocialcontexts
In ourreview,
We also needstudiesthatexamineinstruca cognitiveperspectiveand a struction.
searchthatintegrates
notonlyinstudent-sponsored
to studytheteachingand learning tionaldiscoursepatterns
socialperspective
in
instructional
in
but
also
and
educational
discussions
ofargumentative
teacher-sponsored
reading
writing
in a
in Englishlanguageartsclassrooms
contexts.
Sucha researchagendawouldcombinethe conversations
in
in
focus
is
teachwhich
the
with
the
of
school
contexts
and
of
reasoning
range
study cognitiveprocesses
for
schemata
andstratagems
argument
studyofhowsuchprocessesare supportedbyclass- ingandlearning
in a argumentative
roomteachersas theyplanand enactinstruction
(Hillocks,2010,2011).
writing
in the
In ourreview,
we also noteda lackofresearchadcontextsas represented
rangeofinstructional
betweenreadcollaborative
reasoningresearch(e.g.,Jadallahet al., dressinga numberofissuesoftransfer
of
oral
as
well
as transfer
and
2011).A keyelementin doingso wouldincludeanaly- ing,writing,
production
fieldsordisciplines
acrossdifferent
thatoccursduringthelesson literacy
sisoftheuse ofdiscourse
practices
forexample,howusesofarguaremak- research
thatexamines,
as a windowintothewaysin whichstudents
about
towriting
ofan issuetransfers
tasks. mentindiscussion
readingand writing
ingsenseofargumentative
etal.,2007).As wenotedin
and em- thatissue(e.g.,Reznitskaya
Suchan approachwoulddrawon theoretical
tothestudyofargumenrelated
andtext thisreview,
aboutdiscourseprocessing
arguments
piricalknowledge
to adoption
and
differ
tative
writing
according
reading
developedbycognitive
psychologists,
comprehension
taskpositionordiscourseversusa social
as socialpracticeandevents ofa cognitive
andthestudiesofliteracy
inhow practicepositionor discourse.Studentsformulating
researchers
interested
developedbyeducational
in a literature
classbasedon a discourseof
in
the
classroom.
is
used
arguments
language
will
Whatis also neededarestudiesthatoccurwithin feminist
literary
analysis buildtheirclaimson difthanwillstudents
orwarrants
ofschooland nonschoolsocialcon- ferent
thecomplexities
presuppositions
based
on a discourseof
their
and
textsinvolving
uses ofactual,authentic
purposes
formulating arguments
We
includ- newcriticism/formalist
uses ofargument,
audiencesshapingstudents'
analysis. foundlittleorno
in
ofhowdifferences
awareness
research
on
students'
of
teachers'
and
students'
the
interpretaing vagaries
differacross
or
and
of
tions discussion,reading,writing, reasoning. discourses, presuppositions
operating
orhow
aremorelikelytobe engagedin entfieldsordisciplines,
Forexample,students
shapetheirarguments,
arrecontextualize
students'
serve
to
if
status
those
discourses
quo
argumentstheyareaddressing
generating
certain
related
to
as
social
theirlivesand iftheyknow guments
affect
issuesthatdirectly
adopting
practices
ofauorperceptions
thatmakingsucharguments
mayresultin theiraudi- personasorroles,stances,beliefs,
inthestatusquo (R. Beach dience(vanLeeuwen,2009).
encesaddressing
problems
Thereis also a need to developmorefine-tuned
& Doerr-Stevens,
2009).
thequalityofargumentative
As previouslynoted,studentsand teachersof- meansofassessing
reading
in termsofassessingtheuse
use ofar- and writing,
tensionsbetweenevaluating
tenexperience
particularly
in thisreview.Although
to simplyfulfillan assignment ofsocialpracticesidentified
writing
gumentative
withno actual audienceuptakeversusengagingin assessmentcriteriaand rubricshavebeen developed

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

297

foranalysisoftheuse ofclaims,supporting
tendto favoronefunction
overtheothers,
reasons, perspective
and
less
attention
has
effective
in
warrants, counterarguments,
argument mostsocialandculturalcontexts
beendevotedtoanalysisofpractices
related
todevelop- andacademicdomainsrequiresexpertise
inallthree.
mentofethos,gainingaudienceidentification,
doubleThe successful
readerorwriter
willbe a personwho
discoursesand stances,usesofvisual can argueeffectively
orperhapsnewrhevoicingdifferent
usingcurrent
and so forth(Prioretal, 2007).Forexample, toricalstylesandstructures
rhetoric,
tomakehisorherownideonekeyfactor
ineffective
is the ationalcontributions
tosignificant
conversations
within
argumentative
writing
use ofwhatGraffandBirkenstein
(2006)describedas and acrossdomains,and whocan readthoughtfully
readersas to whatand and writewithauthority
in waysthatotherswillfind
metacommentary
informing
howwriters
areframing
an argument,
disso- interesting
and convincing.
Becausethereareso many
including
- the
ciationfromcertainfamiliar
that
are
positionsorstances
to oursocial,cultural,
arguments
important
factthata student
is notadopting
certainpositions
that academic,and professional
worlds,readingand writcouldbe attributed
to theirposition(vanRees,2009). ingarguments
are,in turn,a matterofdevelopingan
Moreresearchis neededthatexaminesthedegreeto
ofwhatis appropriate,
understanding
why,when,and
whichtheuse ofmetacommentary
enhancestheeffec- to and forwhom,to makea contribution
to thoseartiveness
anduptakeofargumentative
writing.
in
effective
and
guments
compelling
ways.We believe
We havealsopositedtheneedforexamining
argu- thateducational
contexts
anddedicated,
well-informed
mentas an ongoing
processovertimethatincorporates practitioners
arekeystofurthering
students'
opportunicollaborative
discussionand writing.
Further
research tiesto
ofargumentative
readacquiresuchknowledge
also needsto buildon thecollaborative
reasoningre- ingand writing.
research
has
an
roleto
Yet,
important
search(e.g.,Reznitskaya
et al.,2009)to examinehow
playin enhancingand sometimeschangingteaching
students'
dialogicoraladoptionofalternative
perspec- andlearning;
thisrequiresan imaginative
andthoughttivesanddiscourses
inonline,computer-based
interac- ful
ofthecognitive
andsocialperspectives.
blending
tionstransfers
to students'
For
argumentative
writing.
researchers
theuse ofonlineargumentative Notes
analyzing
discussions,one challengehas to do withanalysisor AlthoughFeltonand Kuhn (2001)
between
implieda distinction
evaluation
ofwhatis a highly
interactive
process.
versusargumentative
argumentive
(i.e.,aboutargument)
(i.e.,disBasedonassessments
ofasynchronous
we haveoptedto use themorecommon
discussions, putatious,contentious),
Gant(2007)notedthelimitations
oftheuse ofanalytic termargumentative.
and holisticscoringemployedto assesstheappropri- 2Toulmin(1958/2003)pointed out that he did not have "in
atenessofcontentorsupportforpositions.She noted mindan analyticalmodel likethatwhich,amongscholarsof
came to be called 'the Toulminmodel'" (p.
Communication,
thatanalyticscoringcan be timeconsuming,
whereas vii).
Usingcitationdata from1976to 2007,Bizup (2009)argued
holistic
and thatcompositionscholarshavetendedto considerand criticize
scoring
maynotcapturespecificstrengths
weaknesses.
Sheproposeda hybrid
assessment
model Toulmin'slayoutormodelofargument
rather
thanmakinguse of
the
full
arc
of
his
on
and
thatanalyzestheargument
levels
of
scholarship argument reasoning.
structure,
disagreeofthisreviewwas supportedin partbytheInstitute
andinteraction.
Forexample,
suchan assessment Preparation
ment,
ofEducationSciencesoftheU.S. Department
ofEducation(grant
mightconsiderthedegreeto whichstudents"discuss
thecontents
do notnecessarily
However,
R305A100786).
represent
withclassmates'analytical the
agreement/disagreement
orthepoliciesoftheInstitute
ofEducationSciencesor
positions
reflections
and provideexplanationoflogic;and/or theU.S.
ofEducation.We wouldalso liketoacknowlDepartment
respondto questionsposed in classmates'analytical edgeDavid Bloome'ssuggestionsregarding
as a social
argument
and whenappropriate,
reference
of
reflections,
assigned practice.His ideas clarifiedand deepenedourunderstanding
andperson- thisconcept.
research,
readings,
independent
examples,
al experience"
(Gant,2007,Figure1).Sheis particularly
concernedaboutthedegreeto whichassessments
are References
D.D. (2008).The elementary
letter:
TwocasAnderson,
related
tospecificcourselearning
persuasive
objectives.
es
of
situated
and agency.Research
inthe
competence,
strategy,
In reviewing
research
froma cognitive
perspective
270-314.
Teaching
of
42(3),
English,
and a socialperspective,
wefindthateachprovidesits
Anderson,
R.G.,Nguyen-Jahiel,
K.,McNurlen,
.,Archodidou,
.,
ownparticular
on
insights teachers'supportand how
Kim,S., Reznitskaya,
., et al. (2001).The snowballphenomestudentsemployargumentative
acrossgroups
readingand writing, non:Spreadofwaysoftalkingandwaysofthinking
of
children.
and
the
1-46.
value
of
doi:10.1207/
these
Instruction,
Cognition
19(1),
suggesting
combining
perspectives
S1532690XCI1901_l
forotherliteracy
researchtopics.As an example,our
inhigher
education:
Improving
notionofargumentative
andwriting
isinclusive Andrews,R. (2010).Argumentation
reading
andresearch.
NewYork:Routledge.
practice
through
theory
ofHalliday's(1994)metafunctions:
theideational,
the Andriessen, (2006).
J.
Arguingto learn.In R.K. Sawyer(Ed.), The
andthetextual.Our reviewmakesclear
interpersonal,
handbook
sciences(pp. 443-460).New
Cambridge
ofthelearning
thatalthough
thecognitive
and thesocial
York:Cambridge
Press.
perspective
University
298

Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D. (Eds.). (2003).Arguing
to Bergmann,
andtransfer:
Andriessen,
L.S., & Zepernick,
J.,Baker,M., & Suthers,
J.(2007).Disciplinarity
learn:Confronting
incomputer-supported
collaborative
Students'
oflearning
towrite.WPAJournal,
cognitions
31(1/2),
perceptions
MA: KluwerAcademic.
environments.
124-149.
Norwell,
learning
L.K.,& Reiser,
BJ.(2009).Makingsenseofargumentation
Applebee,A.N. (withAuten,., & Lehr,F.). (1981).Writingin Berland,
areas.Urbana,IL:
thesecondary
school:Englishand thecontent
and explanation.ScienceEducation,93(1),26-55.doi:10.1002/
NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.
sce.20286
towrite:Studiesofsec- Bernstein,
B. (1996).Pedagogy,
control
andidentity:
forlearning
symbolic
Theory,
Applebee,A.N. (1984).Contexts
schoolinstruction.
London:Taylor& Francis.
Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
research,
ondary
critique.
instruction. Berrill,
andwriting
D.B. (Ed.). (1996).Perspectives
onwritten
Creskill,
argument.
Applebee,A.N. (1991).Informal
reasoning
& J.W.Segal(Eds.),Informal
InJ.F.Voss,D.N. Perkins,
reasoning
NJ:Hampton.
inmultimodal
texts:A social
andeducation
Bezemer,
J.,& Kress,G. (2008). Writing
(pp.401-414).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
as conversation:
accountofdesignsforlearning.
Written
Communication,
Transforming semiotic
Applebee,A.N. (1996).Curriculum
ofChicago
andlearning.
traditions
25(2),166-195.doi:10.1177/0741088307313177
ofteaching
Chicago:University
- A vision
Press.
G.,& Snow,C.E. (2004).Readingnext
Biancarosa,
foracA report
to
instrucin middleand highschoolliteracy:
tionand research
Applebee,A.N.,& Langer,J.A.(2006).Thestateofwriting
DC: Alliancefor
tionin America'sschools:Whatexistingdata tellus. Albany:
Corporation
ofNewYork.
Carnegie
Washington,
Excellent
Education.
Centeron EnglishLearning& Achievement,Universityat
StateUniversity
ofNewYork.
Albany,
Bizup,J. (2009).The uses of Toulminin compositionstudies.
Fouressays(M.
andCommunication,
M.M. (1981).Thedialogicimagination:
Bakhtin,
62(1),W1-W23.
CollegeComposition
andactuality
ofvisualarguments.
Ed. & Trans.,&C. Emerson,
Trans.).Austin:University Blair,J.A.(2004).The possibility
Holquist,
in a digitalworld:A critical
In C. Handa (Ed.), Visualrhetoric
ofTexasPress.
Martin's.
sourcebook
Bakhtin,M.M. (1986).Speechgenresand otherlate essays(C.
(pp. 344-363).Boston:Bedford/St.
Emerson& M. Holquist,Eds.,& V.W.McGee,Trans.).Austin: Bloome,D., Beierle,M., Grigorenko,
M., & Goldman,S. (2009).
memocollective
ofTexasPress.
University
Learningovertime:Usesofintercontextuality,
intheconstruction
oflearning
ries,andclassroomchronotopes
Ball, D.L., & Forzani,F.M. (2007). 2007 Wallace Foundation
ina ninth-grade
Language
languageartsclassroom.
opportunities
distinguished lecture: What makes education research
andEducation,
"educational"? Educational Researcher,36(9), 529-540.
23(4),313-334.doi:10.1080/09500780902954257
doi:10.3102/0013189X07312896
B.M.,Otto,S., & Shuart-Faris,
Bloome,D., Carter,S.P.,Christian,
An introduction
totheecology
N. (2005).Discourseanalysisandthestudyofclassroom
D. (2007).Literacy:
Barton,
ofwritten
language
events:A microethnographic
and literacy
Mahwah,
perspective.
language(2nded.).Maiden,MA: Blackwell.
ofsocial
ofgenresandtheenactment
C. (1994).Systems
Bazerman,
NJ:Erlbaum.
In A. Freedman& P. Medway(Eds.),Genreand the Bogost,I. (2007).Persuasive
intentions.
powerofvideogames:Theexpressive
MIT
PA:
Francis.
MA:
Press.
&
newrhetoric
Bristol,
79-101).
Taylor
games.Cambridge,
(pp.
and
A socioculturalex- Booth,WC. (1963).The rhetorical
stance.CollegeComposition
Beach,K. (1999).Consequentialtransitions:
in education.In A. Iran-Nejad& P.D.
Communication,
14(3),139-145.
peditionbeyondtransfer
in media:
Pearson(Eds.), Reviewofresearchin education(Vol. 24,pp.
Bracken,C.C., & Skalski,P.D. (Eds.). (2010).Immersed
ineveryday
101-139).Washington,DC: AmericanEducationalResearch
life.NewYork:Routledge.
Telepresence
Association.
Brandt,D., & Clinton,K. (2002).Limitsofthelocal: Expanding
as a socialpractice.Journal
ofmemowriton literacy
Beach,R., & Anson,CM. (1988).The pragmatics
ofLiteracy
perspectives
in theuse ofrhetorical
stratResearch,
34(3),337-356.doi:10.1207/sl5548430jlr3403_4
ing:Developmentaldifferences
5(2), 157-183.doi:10.1177/ Britt,M.A., Kurby,CA., Dandotkar,S., & Wolfe,CR. (2008).I
egies. WrittenCommunication,
claims.Discourse
forsimpleargument
0741088388005002003
agreedwithwhat?Memory
incomposiL.S. (Eds.).(1984).Neu;directions
Processes,
Beach,R.,& Bridwell,
45(1),52-84.doi:10.1080/01638530701739207
disNewYork:Guilford.
tionresearch.
Brooks,CD., & Jeong,A. (2006).Effectsofpre-structuring
and groupperformance
C. (2009).Learningargument
cussionthreadson groupinteraction
Beach,R., & Doerr-Stevens,
pracDistance
ofsignificance
in computerTowarda rhetoric
onlinerole-play:
ticesthrough
argumentation.
supportedcollaborative
& AdultLiteracy,
andtransformation.
Education,
52(6),
27(3),371-390.doi:10.1080/01587910600940448
ofAdolescent
Journal
to
thepresent
460-468.doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.6.1
Brooks,K. (2011).Resistanceis futile:"Reaccenting"
C. (in press).Learningto engagein
createclassroomdialogues.Pedagogies,
Beach,R., & Doerr-Stevens,
6(1),66-80.
thevidIn
withvisualimages:Examining
in onlinerole-play.
Bruce,D.L. (2009).Writing
through
participation
dialogicargument
inthe
Research
and Englisheducation.
eo composition
S. Kadjer& C. Young(Eds.),Technology
processesofhighschoolstudents.
426-450.
CT: Information
Greenwich,
Teaching
of
English,
43(4),
Age.
of
intheteaching Burke,K. (1969).A rhetoricofmotives.Berkeley:University
andintersubjectivity
Beck,S.W.(2006).Subjectivity
Research
intheTeaching
California
Press.
andlearning
ofwriting.
40(4),
ofEnglish,
413-460.
Calfee,R.C, & Chambliss,MJ. (1987).The structural
designfea357-378.
constructturesoflargetexts.Educational
ofmiddleschoolstudents
Belland,B.R. (2010).Portraits
22(3/4),
Psychologist,
MJ. (2011).Researchdesignsforempirilearning: Calfee,R.C, & Chambliss,
arguments
duringproblem-based
ingevidence-based
In D. Lapp & D. Fisher(Eds.),Handbookofresearch
Educational
scaffolds.
The impactofcomputer-based
Technology cal research.
theEnglishlanguagearts(3rded.,pp. 386-399).New
onteaching
Research and Development,58(3), 285-309. doi:10.1007/
York:Routledge.
S11423-009-9139-4
of
M. (2006).Educationfortheknowledge Camp,R. (1993).Changingthemodelforthedirectassessment
Bereiter,
, & Scardamalia,
P.A.
&
B.A.
Huot
In
In
M.M.
Williamson
and
instruction.
models
of
centered
(Eds.),
Validating
teaching
writing.
age:Designand empirical
Theoretical
assessment:
holistic
Alexander& PH. Winne(Eds.),Handbookofeducational
psyscoring
forwriting
NJ:Hampton.
(2nded.,pp. 695-713).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
foundations
(pp.45-78).Cresskill,
chology

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

299

Adolescent
I. (2010).The evaluation
ofar(2010).Time Dwyer,C.P.,Hogan,M J.,& Stewart,
CarnegieCouncilon Advancing
Literacy.
toact:An agendaforadvancing
adolescent
as a learning
tool:Comparing
theeffects
ofmap
literacy
forcollegeand
gument
mapping
careersuccess.
NewYork:CarnegieCorporation
ofNewYork.
andrecallofargureadingversustextreadingoncomprehension
ments.Thinking
Skillsand Creativity,
to fosterscientific
5(1),16-22.doi:10.1016/
Cavagnetto,A.R. (2010).Argument
literacy:
A reviewofargument
in K-12 sciencecontexts.
interventions
j.tsc.2009.05.001
thedevelopReviewofEducationalResearch,80(3),336-371.doi:10.3102/ Dyson,A.H. (1995).Writingchildren:Reinventing
mentofchildhoodliteracy.
Written
0034654310376953
Communication,
12(1),4-46.
doi:10.1177/0741088395012001002
Text
cues
and
successful
readers
Chambliss,
MJ. (1995).
strategies
transfer:
conuse to construct
thegistoflengthy
written
Unrulychildren,
arguments.
Reading Dyson,A.H. (1999).Transforming
ofthepedagogicalorder.In A.
trarytexts,and thepersistence
Research
Quarterly,
30(4),778-807.
& P.D. Pearson(Eds.),Reviewofresearch
ineducation
Iran-Nejad
R. (1996).Do adultschangetheirminds
Chambliss,
M.J.,& Garner,
DC: AmericanEducational
(Vol.24,pp. 141-171).
Washington,
after
text?Written
Communication,
13(3),291reading
persuasive
ResearchAssociation.
313.doi:10.1177/0741088396013003001
A.H. (2000).Writing
andtheseaofvoices:Orallanguagein,
Dyson,
P.K. (2002).Fourthand fifth
Chambliss,M.J.,& Murphy,
graders
and
about
In R. Indrisano& J.R.Squire(Eds.),
around,
writing.
theargument
in written
structure
texts.Discourse
representing
onwriting:
andpractice
Research,
Perspectives
theory,
(pp.45-65).
91-115.
Processes,
doi:10.1207/Sl5326950DP3401_4
34(1),
DE: International
Association.
Newark,
Reading
method:Current
workand
Chinn,C.A. (2006).The microgenetic
in a
Dyson,A.H. (2008).The PineCone Wars:Studyingwriting
extensions
to classroomresearch.In J.L.Green,G. Camilli,&
ofchildren.
community
LanguageArts,85(4),305-315.
P.R.Elmore(Eds.),Handbookofcomplementary
methods
ineduEasterday,M.W., Aleven,V, & Scheines,R. (2007). Tis betcationresearch
(pp.439-456).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
terto construct
orto receive?Effect
ofdiagramson analysisof
ofdistantaudienceson
Cohen,M, & Riel,M. (1989).The effect
socialpolicy.In R. Luckin,K.R. Koedinger,& J.Greer(Eds.),
students'
American
Educational
Research
writing.
26(2),
Journal,
on Artificial
Proceedings
ofthe13thInternational
Conference
143-159.
inEducation(pp.93-100).Amsterdam:
IOS.
Intelligence
Coirier,
P.,& Andriessen,
J.(Eds.). (2000).Foundations
ofargumen- Ehrlich,
S. (2010).Peertalkas a doubleopporS.Z., & Blum-Kulka,
tativetextprocessing.
Amsterdam:
Amsterdam
Press.
University
discourse.Discourse
&
tunity
space':The case ofargumentative
of an electronicbar: The
Correll,S. (1995).The ethnography
21(2),211-233.doi:10.1177/0957926509353847
Society,
LesbianCafe.Journal
ofContemporary
24(3),270- Elbow,P. (2000).Everyone
Ethnography,
canwrite:Essaystoward
a hopeful
theory
298.doi:10.1177/089124195024003002
and teachingwriting.
New York:OxfordUniversity
ofwriting
Council of ChiefStateSchool Officers& NationalGovernors
Press.
Association.(2010).Common
CoreStateStandards
Y (2009).The future
ofactivity
A roughdraft.
forEnglish Engestrm,
theory:
in history/social
In A. Sannino,H. Daniels,& K.D. Gutierrez(Eds.),Learning
studies,science,and
languageartsand literacy
technical
DC: Author.Retrieved
and expandingwithactivitytheory(pp. 303-328).New York:
subjects.
Washington,
August
Press.
16,2010,fromwww.corestandards.org/the-standards
Cambridge
University
of argument Erduran, S., & Jimnez-Aleixandre,M. P. (Eds.). (2008).
Crammond,J.G.(1998).The uses and complexity
in expertand studentpersuasivewriting.Written
structures
inscienceeducation:
Argumentation
Perspectives
fromclassroomNewYork:Springer.
Communication,
15(2),230-268.doi:10.1177/0741088398015002004basedresearch.
activist
Crisco,V. (2009).Activating
literacy:
Discovering
disposi- Evensen,L.S. (2002). Conventionfrombelow: Negotiatinginteractionand culture in argumentativewriting.Written
tionsforcivicidentity
Studies,37(2),
Composition
development.
Communication,
31-51.
19(3),382-413.doi:10.1177/074108802237750
ofdiscoursestrategies
in
M. (1990).Teachingandlearning
thewriting
ofpersua- Felton,M.K. (2004).The development
Crowhurst,
adolescent
35-52.
Cognitive
argumentation.
Development,
19(1),
discourse.
Canadian
sive/argumentative
JournalofEducation,
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001
15(4),348-359.
schmasandthetransfer Felton,M.K., & Herko,S. (2004).Fromdialogueto two-sidedarDansereau,D.F. (1995).Derivedstructural
adolescents'persuasivewriting.
gument:Scaffolding
Journal
of
ofknowledge.
In A. McKeough,J.Lupart,& A. Marini(Eds.),
Adolescent
&
Adult
Literacy,
47(8),672-683.
in learning(pp.
Teaching
fortransfer:
Fostering
generalization
ofargumentative
Felton,M., & Kuhn,D. (2001).The development
93-121).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
discourseskill.Discourse
135-153.
Processes,
32(2/3),
A
"raDavies,W.M. (2009).Computer-assisted
argument
mapping:
Ferretti,R.P., Andrews-Weckerly,
S., & Lewis, W.E. (2007).
tionale"approach.Higher
Education,
58(6),799-820.
theargumentative
ofstudentswithlearning
Improving
writing
&
Y
Collaborative
T,
Anderson,
R.C.,Kim,I., Li, (2008).
Dong,
disabilities:
and
normative
considerations.
Descriptive
Reading&
inChinaandKorea.ReadingResearch
reasoning
Quarterly,
43(4),
23(3),267-285.doi:10.1080/10573560701277740
Writing
Quarterly,
400-424.doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.4.5
Ferretti,
R.P.,MacArthur,
CA., & Dowdy,N.S. (2000).The efM. (2009).
Dowell,J.,Tscholl,M., Gladisch,T, & Asgari-Targhi,
fectsof an elaboratedgoal on thepersuasivewritingof stuschemeand sharedonline diagrammingin
Argumentation
dentswithlearningdisabilitiesand theirnormallyachieving
case-basedcollaborative
In C. O'Malley,D. Suthers,
P.
learning.
peers. Journalof Educational Psychology,92(4), 694-702.
& A. Dimitracopoulou,
A. (Eds.),Computer
Reimann,
Supported
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694
CollaborativeLearning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Ferstle,T.
Problems,
(2007).Assessingvisual rhetoric:
practices
(Vol.1,pp. 567-575).Rhodes,Greece:International
Proceedings
andpossiblesolutions.
VDM VerlagDr.
Saarbrcken,
Germany:
SocietyoftheLearningSciences.
Mller.
Griffin: Fleckenstein,
Dubisar,A.M., & Palmeri,J.(2010).Palin/pathos/Peter
K.S. (2007).Who'swriting?
Aristotelian
ethosandthe
Political
videoremixandcomposition
and
author
pedagogy.Computers
positionindigitalpoetics.Kairos,11(3).Retrieved
July21,
27(2),77-93.doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2010.03.004 2010,fromkairos.technorhetoric.
Composition,
net/11.
3/binder.html?topoi/
and
Durst,R.K. (1999).Collisioncourse:Conflict,negotiation,
fleckenstein
/index,
html
incollegecomposition.
Urbana,IL: NationalCouncilof Flower,L. (1989).Cognition,
andtheory
learning
context,
building.College
TeachersofEnglish.
andCommunication,
Composition
40(3),282-311.

300

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

L. (2008).Community
and therhetoric
Flower,
literacy
ofpublicen- Haswell,R.H., Briggs,TL., Fay,J.A.,Gillen,N.K., Harrill,R.,
Garbondale:
Southern
IllinoisUniversity
Press.
gagement.
Shupala,A.M.,etal. (1999).Contextandrhetorical
readingstratL. (2000).Learning
torival:A literFlower,
L., Long,E., & Higgins,
Written
Communication,
egies:Haas andFlower(1988)revisited.
atepractice
Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
forintercultural
inquiry.
16(1),3-27.doi:10.1177/0741088399016001001
A. (1996).Genresofargument
andarguments
as genres. Hayes,J.R. (2006). New directionsin writingtheory.In C.A.
Freedman,
In D.P. Berrill(Ed.),Perspectives
on written
S. Graham,& J.Fitzgerald
argument
(pp. 91MacArthur,
(Eds.),Handbookofwrit120).Cresskill,
NJ:Hampton.
ingresearch
(pp. 28-40).NewYork:Guilford.
reedman, ., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can t
theorganization
Hayes,J.R.,& Flower,L.S. (1980).Identifying
write arguments. English in Education, 18(2), 73-84.
ofwritingprocesses.In L.W. Gregg& E.R. Steinberg(Eds.),
doi:10.1111/j.l754-8845.1984.tb00668.x
inwriting
Cognitive
processes
(pp.3-30).Hillsdale,NT:Erlbaum.
R. (1996).Teaching
theargument
inwriting.
Fulkerson,
Urbana,IL:
visualrhetorics.
Hill,CA., & Helmers,M. (Eds.). (2004).Defining
NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.
Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Gant,G. (2007). Assessingasynchronousdiscussions:An ex- Hillocks,G.,Jr.(1999).Waysofthinking,
NewYork:
waysofteaching.
ploratory
hybridmodel.OnlineJournalofDistanceLearning
TeachersCollegePress.
March1,2011,fromwww.west- Hillocks,G.,
Administration,
10(3).Retrieved
assessJr.(2002).Thetesting
trap:How statewriting
ga.edu/~distance/oidla/falll03/efantl03.htm
ments
control
NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
learning.
Grate,M., Melero,..,Tejerina,I.,Echevarra,
., & Gutierrez, Hillocks,G. (2007).Writing
in secondary
schools.In C. Bazerman
R. (2007). Writtenargumentative
abilitiesof 4thgrade stuon writing:
school,
(Ed.),Handbookofresearch
History,
society,
dentsofcompulsory
edusecondaryeducation:An integrated
text(pp.311-329).NewYork:Erlbaum.
individual,
cationalintervention.
Infnciay Aprendizaje,30(4), 589-602. Hillocks,G.,Jr.(2010).Teachingargument
forcritical
and
thinking
doi:10.1174/021037007782334346
An introduction.
24-32.
99(6),
writing:
English
Journal,
A critique
Gee,J.P.(2004).Situatedlanguageand learning:
oftradi- Hillocks,G.,Jr.(2011).Teaching
claims
argument
writing:
Supporting
tionalschooling.
NewYork:Routledge.
withrelevantevidenceand clearreasoning.
NH:
Portsmouth,
Gee,J.P.,& Green,J.L. (1998).Discourseanalysis,learning,and
Heinemann.
socialpractice:A methodological
study.ReviewofResearchin Holliway,D.R. (2004).Throughtheeyesof reader:A
my
strategy
Education,
23,119-169.
forimproving
audienceperspective
inchildren's
writdescriptive
ina peerinteractional
Glat,M. (2003).Takingothers'perspectives
Research
in
Childhood
334-349.
Education,
of
ing.Journal
18(4),
fora written
settingwhilepreparing
argument.
Languageand
doi:10.1080/02568540409595045
332-354.
doi:10.1080/09500780308666855
Education,
17(5),
., & Pearson,P.D. (Eds.). (1999).Reviewofresearch
Gillies, R.M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promotingreasoned argu- Iran-Nejad,
in education:Vol.24.Washington,
DC: AmericanEducational
mentation,problem-solvingand learning during smallResearchAssociation.
group work.CambridgeJournalof Education,39(1), 7-27.
andidentity:
Thediscoursal
construction
Ivani,R. (1998).Writing
of
doi:10.1080/03057640802701945
inacademicwriting.
identity
Philadelphia:
lohn
Benjamins.
G.
boundaries:
From
student
resistance
Gorzelsky, (2009).Working
the "back-andJackson,., & Wallin,J. (2009). Rediscovering
tostudent
andCommunication,
agency.
CollegeComposition
61(1),
forthness"
of
rhetoric
in
the
of
YouTube.
age
College
Composition
64-84.
andCommunication,
61(2),W374-W396.
G. (2003).Clueless
inacademe:Howschooling
obscures
thelife
Graff,
M.,Anderson,
R.C.,Nguyen-Jahiel,
K.,Miller,B.W.,Kim,
Jadallah,
Press.
ofthemind.NewHaven,CT: YaleUniversity
et
al.
Influence
of
a
teacher's
moves
I.,
Kuo,
L.,
(2011).
scaffolding
&
C.
Graff,
G., Birkenstein,(2006)."Theysay/Isay":Themovesthat
discussions.
American
Educational
duringchild-led
small-group
inacademicwriting.
matter
NewYork:W.W.Norton.
Research
48(1),194-230.doi:10.3102/0002831210371498
Journal,
instruction
andtheteaching
ofwriting:
Graham,S. (2006).Strategy
., Chee,Y.S., & Ho, C.M.L. (2009).Fostering
arguA meta-analysis.
In G.A. MacArthur,
S. Graham,&J.Fitzgerald Jamaludin,
mentative
construction
enactiveroleplayin
knowledge
through
research
New
York:
(Eds.),Handbookofwriting
187-207).
(pp.
SecondLife.Computers
& Education,
53(2),317-329.doi:10.1016/j.
Guilford.
compedu.2009.02.009
Green,J.L.,Gamilli,G., & Elmore,P.B. (Eds.). (2006).Handbook
C.C. (2009).Writing
about
L.R, Kahn,..,& Walter,
methods
in educationresearch.
Mahwah,NJ: Johannessen,
ofcomplementary
literature
IL:
National
Council
of
Teachers
of
Urbana,
(2nd
ed.).
Erlbaum.
English.
A. (2003).Ethnography
as a
Green,J.L.,Dixon,G.N.,& Zaharlick,
R.T. (2009).Energizing
D.W.,& Johnson,
InJ.Flood,D. Lapp,J.R.Squire,& J.M.Jensen Johnson,
learning:The
logicofinquiry.
instructional
of
conflict.
Educational
Researcher,
Handbook
power
38(1),
research
on
the
arts
(Eds.),
of
teaching English
language
37-51.doi:10.3102/0013189X08330540
(2nded.,pp. 201-224).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
R.,Jones,S., & Doherty,
J.(2008).Two studiesexamining
Haas, C., & Flower,L. (1988). Rhetoricalreadingstrategies Joiner,
in asynchronous
mediatedcommuniand the constructionof meaning.CollegeCompositionand
argumentation
computer
cation.International
& MethodinEducation,
Journal
ofResearch
Communication,
39(2),167-183.
and languagefunc31(3),243-255.doi:10.1080/17437270802416848
Halliday,M.A.K. (1970).Languagestructure
R. (2007).Audienceawareness
andInternet
tion.InJ.Lyons(Ed.),Newhorizons
Karchmer-Klein,
inlinguistics
pub(pp. 140-165).
howfourth
England:Penguin.
Harmondsworth,
lishing:A qualitative
analysisoffactors
influencing
text.Actionin TeacherEducation,
M.A.K. (1994).Anintroduction
tofunctional
graderswriteelectronic
29(2),
Halliday,
(2nd
grammar
39-50.
ed.).London:EdwardArnold.
ina digitalworld:A critical Kinloch,V. (2010).Harlemonourminds:Place,race,andtheliteraHanda,G. (Ed.). (2004).Visualrhetoric
ciesofurbanyouth.
sourcebook.
NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.
Boston:Bedford/St.
Martin's.
C.L., & Bielby,D.D. (1995).Wheredid youhearthat? Kirschner,
P.A.,Shum,S.J.B.,
&Carr,C.S. (Eds.).(2003).Visualizing
Harrington,
andthesocialorganization
ofgossip.TheSociological
toolsforcollaborative
and educational
Technology
argumentation:
Software
London:Springer-Verlag.
Quarterly,
36(3),607-628.doi:10.1111/j.l533-8525.1995.tb00456.x
sense-making.

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

301

oftopicknowledge,
external Lunsford,K.J.(2002).Contextualizing
Toulmin'smodelin the
Kobayashi,. (2009).The influence
classroom:A case study.Written
on students'
Communication,
use,andcollegeexperience
19(1),
strategy
comprehension writing
109-174.
doi:10.1177/074108830201900105
andIndividual
ofcontroversial
texts.Learning
29(1),
Differences,
130-134.doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001
Marini,., & Gnreux,R. (1995).The challengeofteaching
In A. McKeough,J.Lupart,& A. Marini(Eds.),
fortransfer.
K.
use
of
texts
for
the
(2010).
Strategic
multiple
Kobayashi,
in learning(pp.
evaluationofarguments.
Teaching
fortransfer:
Fostering
generalization
ReadingPsychology,
31(2),121-149.
doi:10.1080/02702710902754192
1-19).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
R.A.,Orellana,M.F.,Pacheco,M., & Carbone,P. (2008).
students
to talkaboutex- Martinez,
Kucan,L., & Beck,I.L. (2003).Inviting
Foundintranslation:
toacaConnecting
translating
experiences
positorytexts:A comparisonoftwodiscourseenvironments
demic
writing.
421-431.
Arts,
Research
and
and theireffectson comprehension.
Language
85(6),
Reading
McAlister,
S., Ravenscroft,
., & Scanlon,E. (2004).Combining
Instruction,
42(3),1-29.
interaction
andcontext
New York:Cambridge
designtosupportcollaborative
argumenKuhn,D. (1991).The skillsofargument.
tationusinga toolforsynchronous
CMC. Journal
ofComputer
Press.
University
Assisted
20(3),194-204.
Learning,
MA: Harvard
Kuhn,D. (2005).Education
forthinking.
Cambridge,
T.M.
Studentargumentative
McCann,
(1989).
writing
knowledge
Press.
University
and
at
three
ability
gradelevels.Researchin theTeachingof
A. (inpress).Dialogicargumentation
as a veKuhn,D., & Crowell,
23(1),62-76.
English,
hiclefordeveloping
youngadolescents'thinking.
Psychological
acrossthecurriculum:
Melzer,D. (2009).Writingassignments
Science.
A
national
of
and
College
Composition
study
college
writing.
D.
&
K., Shaenfield, (2008).Arguing
Kuhn,D., Goh,W.,Iordanou,
Communication,
61(2),W240-W261.
A microgenetic
onthecomputer:
studyofdeveloping
argument
(2008).The effects
ofconE., Haria,P.,& MacArthur,
skillsina computerenvironment.
ChildDevelopment, Midgette,
supported
tentand audienceawareness
forrevision
on thepersuasive
goals
1310-1328.
79(5),
doi:10.1111/j.l467-8624.2008.01190.x
andeighth-grade
students.
essaysoffifthReadingand Writing,
ofargument
skills.
Kuhn,D., & Udell,W. (2003).The development
131-151.
doi:10.1007/slll45-007-9067-9
22(1/2),
ChildDevelopment,
1245-1260.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605
74(5),
D. (2007).Persuasion,
Miller,C.R., & Charney,
audience,and arLanger,J.A.(1992).Speakingofknowing:
ConceptionsofunderIn
C.
Bazerman
Handbook
research
onwriting:
(Ed.),
of
gument.
in
In
A.
& C. Moran
standing academicdisciplines.
Herrington
text(pp. 583-589).NewYork:
school,individual,
History,
society,
and
the
in
69(Eds.),Writing,
teaching, learning
disciplines
(pp.
Erlbaum.
85).NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociation.
.., & Lewis,. (2007).Examiningopportunities
to learn
Moje,
instruction:
J.A.(2002).Effective
literacy
Building
successful
Langer,
The roleofcriticalsocioculturalliteracyresearch.In
literacy:
Urbana,IL: NationalCouncilof
readingand writing
programs.
C. Lewis,P. Enciso,& E.B. Moje (Eds.),Reframing
socioculturTeachersofEnglish.
al research
on literacy:
andpower(pp. 15-48).
Identity,
agency,
J.A.,& Applebee,A.N. (1987).Howwriting
shapesthinking:
Langer,
Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
A study
andlearning
(NCTE ResearchReportNo. 22).
ofteaching
W., & Beaumont,G. (2003).A dialogicapproachto arMorgan,
Urbana,IL: NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.
gumentation:
Usinga chatroomto developearlyadolescent
C.A. (2009).Improving
students'
Larson,A.A.,Britt,
M.A.,&Kurby,
students'argumentative
& Adult
ofAdolescent
Journal
writing.
TheJournal
evaluationofinformal
ofExperimental
arguments.
146-157.
Literacy,
47(2),
Education,
77(4),339-366.doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366
inteaching
research
andlearning
the
Moss,G. (2011).Ethnographic
and
Laurinen,L.I., & Marttunen,
MJ. (2007).Written
arguments
arts:Studying
theculturalcontexts
ofteaching
English
language
theargumentative
collaborative
speechactsinpractising
power
and learning
theEnglishlanguagearts.In D. Lapp & D. Fisher
oflanguagethrough
chatdebates.Computers
and Composition,
onteaching
theEnglish
arts
(Eds.),Handbookofresearch
language
'
24(3),230-246.doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.05.002
(3rded.,pp. 370-374).NewYork:Routledge.
E. (1991).Situatedlearning:
Lave,J.,& Wenger,
Legitimate
periph- Nussbaum,E.M., & Kardash,CM. (2005).The effects
ofgoalineralparticipation.
NewYork:Cambridge
Press.
University
structions
andtexton thegeneration
ofcounterarguments
durLeander,. (2009).Composingwithold and newmedia:Toward
97(2),157-169.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,
ingwriting.
a parallelpedagogy.In V. Carrington
& M. Robinson(Eds.),
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
Social learningand classroom
practices(pp.
Digitalliteracies:
Nussbaum, E.M., & Schraw, G. (2007). PromotingarguThousandOaks,CA: Sage.
147-164).
in students'writing.The
ment-counterargument
integration
Leander,
K.M.,& McKim,K.K. (2003).Tracingthe
everyday
'sitings'
Education,76(1),59-92. doi:10.3200/
JournalofExperimental
A strategic
ofadolescents
ontheInternet:
ofethnograadaptation
JEXE.76.1.59-92
Communication Nystrand,
spaces.Education,
phyacrossonlineandoffline
M. (1986).Thestructure
communication:
Studies
ofwritten
& Information,
3(2),211-240.doi:10.1080/14636310303140
inreciprocity
andreaders.
between
writers
Orlando,FL: Academic.
Lee, CD. (2007). The tole of culturein academic literacies: Nystrand,
M. (2006).The socialand historical
contextforwriting
ourblooming
inthemidstofthewhirlwind.
NewYork:
Conducting
In A. MacArthur,
research.
S. Graham,& J.Fitzgerald
(Eds.),
TeachersCollegePress.
Handbookofwriting
research
(pp. 11-27).NewYork:Guilford.
as method,methodology,
and "deep Nystrand,
Lillis,T. (2008).Ethnography
W. (2001).On theecolM., Gamoran,.,& Carbonaro,
between
text
and
in acathe
context
inhighschool
The case ofwriting
theorizing":
Closing gap
ogyofclassroominstruction:
demicwriting
research.
Written
Communication,
25(3),353-388.
Englishand socialstudies.In P. Tynjl,L.Mason,& K. Lonka
doi:10.1177/0741088308319229
as a learning
tool:Integrating
andpractice
(Eds.),Writing
theory
in a
The Netherlands:
KluwerAcademic.
Lindquist,J.(2002). place tostand:Politicsandpersuasion
(pp. 57-81).Dordrecht,
bar.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
An
N. (2001).Reportinargument
s clothing:
working-class
M.,& Graff,
Nystrand,
in
a
on
instruction
Lund,K., Molinari,G., Sjourn,., & Baker,M. (2007).How
seventh-grade
ecologicalperspective writing
do argumentation
SchoolJournal,
classroom.TheElementary
diagramscomparewhenstudentpairsuse
102(4),479-493.
themas a meansfordebateoras a toolforrepresenting
debate? Page-Voth,
V.,& Graham,S. (1999).Effectsofgoal settingand
International
Collaborative
use on thewritingperformance
and self-efficacy
of
Journalof Computer-Supported
strategy
studentswith writingand learningproblems.Journalof
2(2/3),273-295.doi:10.1007/sll412-007-9019-z
Learning,

302

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Educational
P. del Rio,& A. Alvarez,Eds., 1995,NewYork:
92(2),230-240.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91 byJ.V.Wertsch,
Psychology,
.2.230
Press)
Cambridge
University
connections:
Discourse-oriented Rourke,L., Anderson,T, Garrison,D.R., & Archer,W. (1999).
Parodi,G. (2007).Reading-writing
research.Readingand Writing,
text-based
20(3), 225-250.doi:10.1007/
Assessingsocialpresencein asynchronous
computer
TheJournal
S11145-006-9029-7
conferencing.
ofDistanceEducation.14(2).50-71.
communiA. (2010).Languageas a local practice.New York: Russell,D.R. (2009).Uses ofactivity
theoryin written
Pennycook,
cationresearch.In A. Sannino,H. Daniels,& K.D. Gutierrez
Routledge.
withactivity
card:
(Eds.),Learningandexpanding
Perie,M, Grigg,
W.,& Donahue,P. (2005).Thenation's
theory
(pp. 40-52).
report
NewYork:Cambridge
Press.
Universitv
Reading2005 (NGES 2006-451).Washington,DC: National
CenterforEducationStatistics,
Institute
ofEducationSciences, Russell,D.R. (2010).Writingin multiplecontexts:Vygorskian
CHAT meetsthephenomenology
ofgenre.In Bazerman,R.
U.S. Department
ofEducation.
S. McLeod, S. Null,P. Rogers,et al. (Eds.),
Krut,K. Lunsford,
H.R., Daane, M.C., & Jin,Y. (2003).The nation'sreport
Persky,
Traditions
research
card:Writing
2002(NCES 2003-529).
DC: National
ofwriting
(pp.353-364).NewYork:Routledge.
Washington,
and text:A dual coding
CenterforEducationStatistics,
Institute
ofEducationSciences, Sadoski,M., & Paivio,A. (2001).Imagery
andwriting.
Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
theory
U.S. Department
ofEducation.
ofreading
M., & Laurinen,L. (2010).Visualising
K.W.(2009).Studentethosintheonlinetechnicalcom- Salminen,T., Marttunen,
Pickering,
fromchatdebatesin argument
munication
classroom:
Diversevoices.Technical
of
diagrams.Journal
Communication knowledge
Assisted
Computer
26(5),379-391.
Learning,
doi:10.1080/10572250802708303
18(2),166-187.
Quarterly,
tech- Scardamalia,M., & Bereiter, (1994).Computersupportfor
Pinkwart,
N.,& McLaren,B.M. (Eds.),(inpress).Educational
communities.
TheJournaloftheLearning
knowledge-building
skills.
Oak
IL:
Bentham
Park,
nologies
forteaching
argumentation
Sciences.3(3).265-283.
Science.
mall Scheuer,., Loll, F., Pinkwart,., & McLaren, B.M. (2010).
Powell,A.G.,Farrar,
E., & Cohen,D.K. (1985).Theshopping
A reviewofthestateofthe
Computer-supported
argumentation:
school:
Winners
and
losers
in
the
educational
high
marketplace.
art.
International
Collaborative
Journal
of
ComputerSupported
Boston:Houghton
Mifflin.
43-102.
doi:10.1007/sll412-009-9080-x
5(1),
Learning,
M.
P.B.,Brown,
R.,Schuder,
T.,Bergman,
Pressley, (withEl-Dinary,
ina changing
B.B.,& De Groot,R. (2007).Argumentation
instruc- Schwarz,
J.L.,York,M., et al.). (1995).A transactional
strategies
world.
International
Collaborative
Journal
of
ComputerSupported
tionChristmas
carol.In A. McKeough,J.Lupart,& A. Marini
Learning,
2(2/3),297-313.doi:10.1007/sll412-007-9020-6
in
(Eds.),Teaching
fortransfer:
Fostering
generalization learning
A. (2007).The roleoffloorcontroland
Schwarz,B.B.,& Glassner,
Mahwah,NT:Erlbaum.
(pp. 177-213).
ofontologyin argumentative
activitieswithdiscussion-based
P.A.
A
sociohistoric
account
Prior, (1998).Writing/
disciplinarity:
of
tools.
International
Collaborative
Journal
of
ComputerSupported
literate
intheacademy.
activity
Mahwah,NT:Erlbaum.
449-478.doi:10.1007/sll412-007-9024-2
2(4),
Learning,
P.
Toward
the
of argumentation:
A
Prior, (2005).
ethnography
S. (2000).Twowrongs
Schwarz,B.B.,Neuman,Y, & Biezuner,
may
responseto RichardAndrews' 'Models of argumentation
makea right...
iftheyarguetogether!
and Instruction,
Cognition
in educationaldiscourse.'Text,25(1), 129-144.doi:10.1515/
18(4),461-494.doi:10.1207/Sl532690XCI1804_2
text.2005.25.1.129
stratSexton,M., Harris,K.R.,& Graham,S. (1998).Self-regulated
Prior,
P.,Solberg,
P.,Bellwoar,
H.,Chewning,
.,Lunsford,
J.,Berry,
andthewriting
Effects
onessaywriting
egy
development
process:
et
al.
and
the
K.J.,
(2007).Re-situating re-mediating canons:
andattributions.
Children,
Exceptional
64(3),295-311.
A cultural-historical
Kairos, Shanahan,T, &
remappingofrhetorical
activity.
(2008).Teachingdisciplinary
litShanahan,
9,2010,fromkairos.technorhetoric.
11(3).Retrieved
September
to adolescents:
content-area
Harvard
eracy
Rethinking
literacy.
net/1
html
1.3/topoi/prior-et-al/mapping/index.
Educational
Review,78(1),40-59.
A
Ramage,J.D.,Bean,J.C., & Johnson,
J.(2007).Writing
arguments:
M. (2003). The social lifeof an essay: Standardizing
Sheehy,
rhetoric
withreadings
(7thed.).NewYork:Longman.
forcesin writing.WrittenCommunication,
20(3), 333-385.
reB.D.,Dion,G.S.,& Donahue,PL. (2009).Thenation's
Rampey,
doi:10.1177/0741088303257279
inacademicprogress
portcard:NAEP 2008trends
(NCES 2009- Sheridan,
D., Michel,T, & Ridolfo,
J.(2009).Kairosandnewmedia:
DC: NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,
479).Washington,
Towarda theoryand practiceofvisualactivism.Enculturation,
Institute
ofEducationSciences,U.S. Department
ofEducation.
6(2). Retrieved
July10,2010,fromenculturation.gmu.edu/6.2/
R.C. (2002).The argument
schema
., & Anderson,
Reznitskaya,
sheridan-michel-ridolfo
and learningto reason.In C.C. Block& M. Pressley(Eds.),
Shulman,L.S. (1997).Disciplinesofinquiryin education:A new
instruction:
Research-based
bestpractices(pp.
Comprehension
overview.In R.M. Jaeger(Ed.), Complementary
methods
for
319-334).NewYork:Guilford.
researchin education(2nd ed., pp. 3-19). Washington,DC:
.,Anderson,
R.C, & Kuo,L. (2007).Teachingand
Reznitskaya,
American
Educational
ResearchAssociation.
TheElementary
SchoolJournal,
learning
argumentation.
107(5), Smagorinsky,
P. (2011).Theoryandmethodinresearch
on literacy
449_472.
practices:Adaptationsand alignmentin researchand praxis.
.,Anderson,
R.C, McNurlen,
.,Nguyen-Jahiel,
K.,
Reznitskaya,
In D. Lapp & D. Fisher(Eds.),Handbookofresearch
on teachoforaldiscussionon
Archodidou,
.,& Kim,S. (2001).Influence
ingtheEnglishlanguagearts(3rded.,pp. 405-409).NewYork:
written
argument.
Discourse
Processes,
32(2/3),155-175.
Routledge.
Reznitskaya,., Kuo, L., Clark,., Miller,., Jadallah,M.,
in multivocal
classrooms:
Notes
Smidt,J.(2002).Double histories
A dialogic
Anderson,
R.C, etal. (2009).Collaborative
towardan ecologicalaccountofwriting.
Written
reasoning:
Communication,
approachtogroupdiscussions.Cambridge
Journal
ofEducation,
19(3),414-443.doi:10.1177/074108802237753
39(1),29-48.doi:10.1080/03057640802701952
Spartz,J.M.(2010).Rhetorical
savvyas socialskill:ModelingentreB. (2008).Observing
sociocultural
on threeplanes:
construction
withineducationalcontent
manRogoff,
activity
preneuridentity
and apprenTheWriting
Participatory
appropriation,
guidedparticipation,
Instructor,
agement
systems.
May.Retrieved
July24,
& J.Soler(Eds.),Pedagogyand
ticeship.In K. Hall,P. Murphy,
2010,fromwww.writinginstructor.com/spartz
Culture
andidentities
F. (2007).Facilitating
arpractice:
.,Weinberger,
., & Fischer,
(pp. 58-74).ThousandOaks,A:
Stegmann,
fromSociocultural
studiesofmind,
construction
withcomputerSage.(Reprinted
pp. 139-164,
gumentative
knowledge
supported

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

303

International
collaboration
contexts
Journal
ofComputerSupported Walton,D. (1998).Thenewdialectic:Conversational
scripts.
ofarCollaborative
ofTorontoPress.
Toronto,
ON, Canada:University
Learning,2(4), 421-447.doi:10.1007/sll412-007 gument.
-9028-y
Walton,D. (2007). Dialog theoryfor critical argumentation.
B.V.(1995).Socialliteracies:
Criticalapproaches
toliteracy
in
Street,
JohnBenjamins.
Philadelphia:
andeducation.
NewYork:Longman.
dialecticandrhetorical
invention.
Walton,D. (2011).Computational
development,
ethnography
AI & Society,
Street,B. (2004). Academic literaciesand the 'new orders':
26(1),3-17.doi:10.1007/s00146-010-0279-l
instudent
inhigh- Walton,D., Reed,C, & Macagno,F. (2008).Argumentation
forresearch
andpractice
schemes.
writing
Implications
and Teaching
intheSocial Sciences,1(1),
ereducation.
NewYork:Cambridge
Press.
Learning
University
9-20.doi:10.1386/ltss.l.l.9/0
circle:Cross-classroom
Ward,M., Sr.(2009).Squaringthelearning
CD. (2003).An experimental
Suthers,
D.D., & Hundhausen,
collaborationsand the impactof audience on studentoutstudy
learnoftheeffects
ofrepresentational
comesinprofessional
guidanceoncollaborative
Journal
ofBusinessand Technical
writing.
oftheLearningSciences,12(2),183-218.
ingprocesses.Journal
Communication,
23(1),61-82.doi:10.1177/1050651908324381
'transfer'
fromFYC: Preliminary
doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2
Wardle,E. (2007).Understanding
Suthers,D.D., Vatrapu,R., Medina,R.,Joseph,S., & Dwyer,N.
65-85.
results
ofa longitudinal
study.WPAJournal,
31(1/2),
discussion:Representational
B. (2007).Rhetoric
andpoliticson the
(2008).Beyondthreaded
online:Persuasion
guidance Warnick,
inasynchronous
collaborative
environments.
Computers
WorldWideWeb.NewYork:PeterLang.
learning
& Education,
50(4),1103-1127.
Wertsch,
J.V.(1998).Mindas action.NewYork:OxfordUniversity
inonlinecourses:
communities
Swan,K. (2002).Buildinglearning
Press.
&
The importance
ofinteraction.
Education,Communication
andargumenofcollaboration
Wiley,J.,& Bailey,J.(2006).Effects
23-49.
doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016
2(1),
Information,
tationon learningfromWeb pages.In A.M. O'Donnell,C.E.
America's
warof
culture:
Tannen,D. (1999).Theargument
Stopping
reason& G. Erkens(Eds.),Collaborative
Hmelo-Silver,
learning,
NewYork:Ballantine.
words.
ing,andtechnology
(pp. 297-322).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
S.E. (2003).Theusesofargument
Toulmin,
(Updateded.).NewYork: Wiley,
frommultiple
J.,& Voss,J.F.(1999).Constructing
arguments
Press.(Originalworkpublished1958)
Cambridge
University
and notjustmemsources:Tasksthatpromoteunderstanding
A. (1984).Anintroduction
toreasonToulmin,
S.,Rieke,R.,& Janik,
91(2),301-311.
oryfortext.JournalofEducationalPsychology,
ing(2nded.).NewYork:Macmillan.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
vanAmelsvoort,
M, Andriessen,
J.,& Kanselaar,G. (2008).How Wolfe,C.R., & Britt,M.A. (2008).The locus ofthemysidebias
and relateargumentative
studentsstructure
knowledgewhen
in written
& Reasoning,14(1),1-27.
Thinking
argumentation.
withdiagrams.Computers
inHumanBehavior,
learning
together
doi:10.1080/13546780701527674
24(3),1293-1313.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.004
Wolfe,C.R., Britt,M.A., & Butler,J.A. (2009).Argumentation
R. (2004).A systematic
vanEemeren,
F.H.,& Grootendorst,
theory
schemaand themysidebias in written
Written
argumentation.
Thepragma-dialectical
approach.New York:
ofargumentation:
Communication,
26(2),183-209.doi:10.1177/0741088309333019
Press.
University
Cambridge
writers
demonstrate
Wollman-Bonilla,
J.E.(2001).Can first-grade
A..S.(2002).
vanEemeren,
.,Grootendorst,
R.,& Henkemans,
audienceawareness?
36(2),184-201.
Quarterly,
ReadingResearch
Mahwah,NJ:
evaluation,
presentation.
Analysis,
Argumentation:
doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.2.4
Erlbaum.
A.F.,Johnson-Eilola,
J.,Seife,C.L., & Sire,G. (2004).
Wysocki,
vanEemeren,
F.H.,Grootendorst,
R.,Henkemans,
F.S.,Blair,J.A.,
newmedia:Theoryand applications
the
forexpanding
Writing
R.H., Krabbe,E.C.W.,et al. (1996).Fundamentals
Johnson,
of
UtahStateUniversity
Press.
teaching
of
composition.
Logan:
A handbook
and
theory:
ofhistorical
backgrounds
argumentation
education:Teachingargumentative
Yeh,S.S. (1998).Empowering
Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
contemporary
developments.
students.
Research
in
toculturalminority
middle-school
writing
andpractice:
Newtools
vanLeeuwen,T. (2008).Discourse
forcritical
theTeaching
49-83.
33(1),
of
English,
NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
discourse
analysis.
ofsovanLeeuwen,T. (2009).Discourseas therecontextualization
A guide.In R. Wodak& M. Meyer(Eds.),Methods George E. Newell is a professorin the School of Teaching
cialpractice:
Columbus,USA;
ofcriticaldiscourse
analysis(2nded., pp. 144-161).Thousand and Learningat The Ohio StateUniversity,
e-mailgnewell@ehe.osu.edu.
Oaks,CA: Sage.
A
discussions:
vanRees,A. (2009).Dissociationin argumentative
NewYork:Springer.
RichardBeach is a professorin the Departmentof
pragma-dialectical
perspective.
Voss, J.F. (2005). Toulmin's model and the solving of ill- Curriculum
of Minnesota,
and Instruction
at the University
structured
19(3),321-329.doi:10.1007/
Argumentation,
problems.
e-mail
rbeach@umn.edu.
Minneapolis,USA;
S10503-005-4419-6
L.S. (1978).Mindin society:Thedevelopment
ofhigher
Vygotsky,
JamieSmithand JenniferVanDerHeide are doctoral
(M. Cole,Trans.& Ed.; V.John-Steiner,
psychological
processes
MA: Harvard studentsin the School ofTeachingand Learningat The Ohio
S. Scribner,
& . Souberman,
Eds.). Cambridge,
USA.
StateUniversity,
Press.
University

304

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

This content downloaded from 192.245.60.132 on Fri, 24 May 2013 23:47:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions