Four Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Argumentative Discourse

1. Four Pre-Service Teachers’ Understanding of Argumentative Discourse By Manya Chappell Doctoral Candidate Mississippi State University

2. Introduction • Argumentative Literacy has been defined as the heart and soul of education (Alfassi, 2009; Schmoker, 2006). • Argumentative Literacy is the ability to read, think, and listen critically; engage in argumentative discourse; and write arguments. • Toulmin (1959) describes argument as gathering evidence, using that evidence to make a claim, providing warrants, backing warrants with evidence, anticipating and addressing counter-arguments, and crafting rebuttals that may include qualifiers. • Reznitskaya (2001) revisited Toulmin’s argument and created the argument schema theory for use with children.

3. Introduction • In preparation for the demands of argumentative literacy, pre-service teachers must understand argumentative discourse (the live conversations in a classroom that help to cultivate the thought processes of students in regards to argument), a building block for argumentative literacy.

4. Purpose • Researchers and practitioners suggest that meaningful discourse improves students’ ability to think critically and to create the back-and-forth conversations that should happen in their heads as they form arguments (Brown & Keeley, 2004; Hidia,Berndorffa, & Ainleyb, 2002; Hillocks, Jr, 2010, 2011; Lazere, 2006; McClutchen, 2006; Voss, 2001; Wilhem, 2007).

5. Participants

6. Research Questions This study focused upon the following research questions: • What are pre-service teachers’ initial perceptions of argumentative discourse? • How do pre-service teachers’ perceptions of argumentative discourse change when exposed to explicit teaching in argumentative discourse? • What are pre-service teachers’ predictions about teaching argument in their own classrooms in the future?

7. Theoretical Lens • Socio-Cognitive Perspective (Bandura, 1988, 2001) • Argument Schema Theory (Reznitskaya, et al., 2001, 2007) • Situated Learning/Apprenticeship of Observation (Darling-Hammond, 2005; Heaton & Mickelson, 2002; Lave & Wagner, 1991; Lortie, 1975)

8. Socio-Cognitive Perspective • Argumentative discourse is not only cognitive, but it is also social. Understanding argumentative discourse through a socio-cognitive perspective sheds new light on the subject of argumentative discourse. Cognitively speaking, argument is the core of critical thinking, and thus, carries with it a set of cognitive skills which must acquire, develop, hone, use, and transfer to different situations (Newell, Beach, Smith, and VanDerHeide, 2011).

9. Socio-Cognitive Perspective • Just as the word discourse implies, discussion, communication, and interaction must take place for discourse to happen. Social learning creates assimilation for knowledge acquired. Vygotsky admonished teachers to give students rich experiences so that they would learn and apply the information. He said “… pedagogical experience demonstrates that direct instruction in concepts is impossible. It is pedagogically fruitless…It substitutes the learning of dead and empty verbal schemes for the mastery of living knowledge (1987, p. 170).” Acquiring skills without being allowed to use those skills can create “dead and empty verbal schemes”.

10. Argument Schema Theory • Claim • Warrant – Supports • Counter-Argument • Rebuttal • Qualifiers • Reznitskaya et al. 2001

11. Situated Learning/Apprenticeship of Observation • Students co-construct their learning through social interaction and the community context of their situation (Lave & Wagner, 1991). Learning takes place in concrete, practical surroundings and in social interactions.

12. Situated Learning/Apprenticeship of Observation • Lortie (1975) introduced apprenticeship of observation. • It is the idea that 13 years of school create the framework for the belief system one has for learning. • Intuitiveness about how schools should be run • Intuitiveness about how children should behave • Intuitiveness about how teachers are supposed to act

13. Methods • How Analysis Was Conducted • Triangulated several forms of data collection in NVIVO10 • Structured & Written Interviews • Reflections • Classroom Participation • Written Arguments • Description of Interviews • One on One • Written Interview Questions • Research was conducted in my office, in the classroom, and from analyzing interviews, documents, and reflections.

14. Findings Before Involvement in Argumentative Discourse • Pre-Service Teachers (3 out of 4) who were not exposed to argument in K-12 did not have knowledge of what it was. • While Amy had written an argument in 11th grade, she did not know what argumentative discourse might look like in a classroom. • Pre-service teachers (Bianca & Jess) equated argumentative discourse with unorganized fighting. • Pre-service teachers (all four) were apprehensive about using argumentative discourse in the classroom. • Pre-service teachers (3 out of 4)wanted to avoid sensitive issues. • The only pre-service teacher (Lisa) who had previously been exposed to discourse and persuasion felt more confident with learning about argumentative discourse.

15. Findings During Involvement in Argumentative Discourse Pre-Service Teachers • had a hard time making a claim. They wanted to summarize their readings. • did not provide backing for warrants. Bianca would open a statement with “In my opinion….”. • were slow to provide counter-arguments or rebuttals. They were awkward with voicing “points of interest”. • reflected that argument lends importance to informational texts reading. Amy said “I wish I had read more and taken more notes for our discussions.” • suggested that argumentative discourse challenges curiosity. • concluded that argumentative discourse demanded close listening. Bianca said, “Today’s class wasn’t like the others. I had to pay attention.” • revised definition of argumentative discourse as not a fight, but rather a conversation between two opposing opinions…grounds for understanding.

16. Findings After Involvement in Argumentative Discourse Pre-Service teachers concluded that • learning to find and use research is vital to supporting a claim. • argumentative discourse is an engaging activity for students. • argumentative discourse provides for student voices to be heard. • the pre-service teacher now has strategies to use in her classroom. • argument provides a framework within which to share opposing views calmly, yet passionately…heated discussion rather than heated fight. • they felt ready to engage in argumentative discourse • argumentative discourse allows teachers to get to know their students. • argumentative discourse strengthens writing and communicative skills. (Only after classroom conversations and reflections of those conversations, pre-service teachers wrote their arguments.)

17. Findings Four Months After Involvement in Argumentative Discourse • Students had not been involved in any argument activities while in pre-service program (Senior Block). • “I want to use argument, but I don’t know if I remember how.” – Amy • “I loved doing arguments in class, but I don’t get a chance to do it now. I am told what to do, and they don’t do arguments.” – Bianca • “I haven’t had enough practice.” - Lisa

18. Conclusions • The exposure students had to argumentative discourse affected their initial understanding of argumentative discourse, and thus their attitudes about whether it should be included as a learning activity in the classroom. • The more experience pre-service teachers had with argument, the better the pre-service teachers understood argument, and the more they believed that they would be likely to use it in their own future classrooms. • The further removed from the experience with argumentative discourse, the more uncertain pre-service teachers became about their ability to successfully implement it in their future classes.

19. Implications • Multiple exposures to and involvement in argumentative discourse should be created for pre-service teachers. • More information may need to be collected from in-service teachers about their understanding of, teaching strategies used with, and frequency of implementation of argumentative discourse in middle and high school classrooms.

20. Argumentative Discourse: Considerations in the Impact on Pre-Service Teachers’ Effective Implementation Argument Schema Theory, Reznitskaya, et al. 2001 Socio-Cognitive Learning Theory, Bandura, 1988 Apprenticeship of Observation, Lortie, 1975 Graphic, Manya Chappell, 2013

21. Everything’s An Argument • Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, and Walters (2009) wrote a book entitled Everything’s an Argument. • While every lesson in a classroom cannot be an argument, our teachers may be able to engage our students much more by framing more content in an argument – the heart and soul of education(Alfassi, 2009; Schmoker, 2006).