By Manya Chappell
Doctoral Candidate
Mississippi State University
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.
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.
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).
Participants
Person
Age Group
Amy
Traditional
Student
(ages 18-23)
Traditional
Student
(ages 18-23)
Traditional
Student
(ages 18-23)
Traditional
Student
(ages 18-23)
Bianca
Jesse
Lisa
Experience with
Argument
Some in K-12 and
Some in College
Home State
Occupation
Sex
Race
Missisippi
Full-time
Student
F
W
None in K-12 and
Some in College
Mississippi
Full-time
Student
F
W
None in K-12 or
College
Mississippi
Full-time
Student
F
W
Some in K-12 and
Some in College
Alabama
Full-time
Student
F
W
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?
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)
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).
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”.
Argument Schema Theory
 Claim
 Warrant – Supports
 Counter-Argument
 Rebuttal
 Qualifiers

Reznitskaya et al. 2001
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
Implications
 Multiple exposures to and involvement in
argumentative discourse should be created for preservice teachers.
 More information may need to be collected from inservice teachers about their understanding of,
teaching strategies used with, and frequency of
implementation of argumentative discourse in middle
and high school classrooms.
Argumentative Discourse:
Considerations in the Impact on Pre-Service
Teachers’ Effective Implementation
• Socio-Cognitive
Learning
Claim
Counter
Arguments
• Apprenticeship
of Observation
Argument Schema Theory, Reznitskaya, et al. 2001
Socio-Cognitive Learning Theory, Bandura, 1988
Apprenticeship of Observation, Lortie, 1975
Graphic, Manya Chappell, 2013
Warrants
Rebuttals
• Argument
Schema Theory
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).