Sie sind auf Seite 1von 33

Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research Author(s): George E.

Newell, Richard Beach, Jamie Smith, Jennifer VanDerHeide, Deanna Kuhn, Jerry Andriessen Reviewed work(s): 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: 26/12/2011 20:40
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

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


George E. Newell
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

RichardBeach
of University Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

VanDerHeide JamieSmith, Jennifer


USA The Ohio State University, Consulting Editors:
New USA Kuhn, TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity, York, The University, Netherlands JerryAndriessen, Utrecht Deanna

in reforms schools practices reflectsa key component of recentcurricular Acquiringargumentative readingand writing the and universities throughout UnitedStatesand the world as well as a majorchallenge to teachersof readingand writing of in -2 and college writing classrooms. In thisreview,we consider the contributions two researchperspectives,cognitive and social, thatresearchershave employed in the studyof the teaching and learningof argumentative readingand frameworks and logics of We address two basic questions: How do these perspectiveswiththeirown disciplinary writing. and consequently,how have these inform how researchersstudyargumentative interactively readingand writing, inquiry of that may support teachers' understanding what argumentationis and orientationsinformed pedagogical knowledge and empiricalstudiesby considering We analyze relevant how itmay be takenup in the educational contexts? conceptual the assumptionsunderlying cognitiveand social disciplinary perspectives,especially in termsof the warrantsthatthose how these perspectives' logics of inquiryreveal assumptionsabout the transfer perspectivesassume. We also interrogate collaboof learningas supported by instruction and otherpractices,such as classroom discussion, computer-supported and otherformsof instructional rations, support. Using empirical studies of the teaching and learningof argumentative conducted in grades -2 and college writing classrooms,we delineate the assumptionsthatdrivethe readingand writing of two perspectivesand theirinstructional consequences, arguingthatresearchersand teachers need an understanding between theoryand practo theirassumptionsabout knowledge and transfer establisha clear and coherent relationship a the tice. We offer vision forresearchthatintegrates cognitiveand social perspectivesto argue thatthe work of literacy researchis to reveal cognitiveprocesses and instructional practicesthatteachers can promoteand studentscan employ and writing. forlearninghow to do argumentative reading

and writing argumentative1 reading and a key strategies practices represents compoin nent curricular reforms schools and Acquiring ofrecent universities the States theworld. and throughout United

are basedon efforts engage to stuThesereforms often in that and dents debates echothecontroversies discusin the sions their culture, workplace, lives, daily popular and 2010; (Andrews, disciplines professions, academic

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

273

& has Andriessen, Baker, Suthers, 2003;Applebee,1996; Because each perspective itsown wide rangeof vanEemeren, ofdefining and Graff, 2003;Street, 2004; Grootendorst, ways argumentation itsdistinctive logics & Henkemans, oneofthemore dramatic ofinquiry, result often the is confusion sometimes and 2002). Perhaps of of as researchers their with examples thegrowing significance argumentationconflict, literacy predilections is theemphasisof argumentative are to readingand writ- for particular logicsofinquiry inclined ignore for that to ingin theCommonCoreStateStandards English research perspectives areunfamiliar them(cf. arts grades 6-12in U.S. schools(Council Green,Camilli,& Elmore, language for 2006;Shulman, 1997).In ofChiefStateSchoolOfficers National & Governors thisreview, urge we that study argumentation the of in Association, school needstobe fully honestly and multidis2010). settings the the to Nevertheless, casefor valueofallstudents ciplinary, researchers learn to from eachofthe allowing in and is read, write, engage oralargument notalways perspectives. researchers If thisview, will accept they On teachers easytomake. theonehand,although results interesting as may takeconflicting situations exto the of and amine recognize importance argumentative more reading rather seektodismiss than them carefully, as to academic literacies, writing central acquiring they as methodological artifacts. areoften of what evolve coninto leery introducing may Our secondgoal is to bring bear an integrated to flict one-upmanship and in that employed themedia, is, notion argumentationdevelop coherent roof to a and of combative debate bustapproach research argument consisting competitive, to thatinforms teaching the & leadstoan "adversarial and (Johnson Johnson, that 2009) of and in learning argumentative reading writing frame mind"(Tannen, of 1999, 4). In addition, p. given educational contexts. This goalpositions primarily us their in with students as educational experiences arguments themedia, that researchers, is,as peopledoingrein then assume that formulating sim- search education thesakeof claims, may they in for and teaching learning their to the plyneedto summarize claims achieve goal in educational In ourstudies argumentaof settings. ofconvincing audiences without providing supporting tion, example, areparticularly for we in interested what orchanging BallandForzani evidence, considering counterarguments, described the"instructional as (2007) their ownorothers' on stances an issue.On theother dynamic": the to the hand, ability identify underlying argument, Education inherently is and itsclaims, and evidence, reading in an to and transactional; orientation warrants, theprocesses inside instances education what of is theability compose high-quality to a andits probing argument, makes education research . in in and are special...Research education claims, warrants, evidence, writing critical about instructional the at investigates questions dynamic skills academic for success(Graff, 2003;Hillocks, 2010, in related schooling the to and formal play problems directly 2011; Kuhn, 2005).
educational It atvarious instruction, process. treats grain as key in sizes, the variable educational problems, 532) (p.

we thatliteracy researchers, Although recognize in areinterested a range contexts, of conceived, broadly Goals for This Review for purposes, areprimarily our we in interested fosterin Becausewe believe theimportance students of ac- inglearning argue arguing learn educational to and in to and we The that havebefore is toenvision we us quiring argumentative reading writing, use this contexts. task critical review makethecase for to moreresearch on thekindsofclassrooms where students interested are andlearning andwrit- inwhat teachers teach inreading writing and and teaching argumentative reading argua of for ments areofsignificance them theculture that to and ingthat integratesrange research perspectives howand why conduct to studies thisimportant of as- atlarge. think studies We that from boththecognitive ofacademic pect learning. andsocialperspectives contribute sucha vision. can to In spite itssignificance inandoutofschool, of both at present, remains defined or argumentation poorly defined specific ofassumptions Defining Argumentative sets perhaps overly by related research, to theoretical and and Reading and Writing work, teaching we and & Scardamalia, argumentative 2006;Berrill, 1996; How might define reading writ(Bereiter learning that critical ofempirical studies of Coirier Andriessen, & In an ing 2000;Fulkerson, permits analysis 1996). and as of the effort reimagine study teaching learning teaching learning wellas integrationresearch to of and Both and often sinin and con- perspectives? teaching research rely argumentative reading writing educational on or thisreview takesup twogoals.The first the gularly textual structural is texts, assumptions grounded construction a concept argumentation per- in a particular of of ofToulmin's that (1958/2003) interpretation mits oftwodominant research model: and both integration perspectives Argumentative reading writing involve for study argumentation: the of and ofa cognitive social. identification thesis (alsocalleda claim), supportive
274

Conceptualizing the Review

Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

and of argumentative forms uses (Lunsford, and or evidence 2002),such (empirical experiential), assessment the to and warrants thethesis, model, evidence, situation as Toulmins(1958/2003) according what connecting on of intends theexpression ideascomposed for In at- writer to an argument.2 contrast simply constituting whomayasfor audiences occasions specific or someone believe do some- specific to to persuade tempting conventions involves -basedargumentation evidence 2002). (Evensen, making sumespecific thing, from or a claimsupported reasons evidence multiple by to that sources connects theclaimina principled way. Search Methods is view This structural/formalist ofargument ef- In this studiesofteachwe article, review empirical such as argument in foregrounding fective patterns in and reading writing argumentative ingand learning & schemata 2002)and social grades (Reznitskaya Anderson, and arts K-12inEnglish language classrooms in Yet, 2002; 2005). sucha view, college-level (Lunsford, Prior, practices 1985 between contexts published writing also other when excludes it perspectives, has and 2011. especially research there been extensive has Although meta- on in assumesa conduit constraints thatit often in to particularly arguing learnacrossall subjects, notions argumentationscience of Structural (Prior, 1998). phor 2008; see (Erduran& Jimnez-Aleixandre, the for but arenecessary insufficient analyzing comour of 2010, a Cavagnetto, for review 54 studies), review in socialpractices specific literacy focuses learning arguein kindergarten plexargumentative to on through our we events. literacy As researchers, ground viewof collegeEnglishlanguagearts,reading, and writing in used and writing language reading argumentative for are areasthat primarily responsible thedesubject events or inrhetorical contexts literacy 2007). velopment literacy (Barton, arskills practices, and of including of of discussions thedifficulty argumentaTherefore, andwriting 1981, 1984; (Applebee, reading gumentative as need and tive argument a set Hillocks, reading writing totreat & 1999, 2007; 1987). Langer Applebee, with variety uses acrossa range a of ofsocialpractices for in We tried be thorough oursearch relevant to events. ofdifferent literacy and rulesfor to define research, searching, to explicit of two review applying differ- define our Given goalofthis or rulesfor whatwouldbe involved excluded and the entresearch perspectives, cognitive thesocial, from literature. therefore included research We the only and of how toexamine teaching learning argumentativethat viinto and can reading writing be integrated a larger Primarily includedargumentative readingand that we sionofresearch, believe Halliday's 1994) (1970, produced by school-age studentsin writing offeruseful for a tool orusesoflanguage metafunctions and classrooms colarts/reading English language rather To of thedevelopment a unified theory. clarify, classrooms legewriting functional thanadopting linguisHalliday's systemic Occurredin K-12 Englishlanguagearts/readthat as serve the tics, metafunctions only a heuristic alin classrooms Englishin of lowsus to be inclusive ourreview argumentative ing and collegewriting countries is to andwriting. approach argumentation Our speaking reading Was published of in a to between categories (1) theideational, grounded Halliday's 1985, marking shift The first reand in and (2) theinterpersonal, (3) thetextual. research, 2011 multiple perspectives literacy is fers howlanguage used to organize, to understand, of and andexpress both in studies experiences thelogic ideas;the We beganbyreviewing published refereed to secondrefers howlanguageallowsparticipants journalspublished to 1985and 2011thatfocus between of an and take roles express understandingemotions specifically reading writing on text and on argumentative in of and to andattitudes argue discuss a range literacy definedas a typeofcritical and rhetorical thinking refers howlanguage to and of the events; thethird organizes production (also involving identificationa thesis to wants what speaker/writer to communicate an calleda claim), the orexpeevidence (empirical supportive audience. the that of and riential), assessment warrants connect that thesis, it thisreview, willbecomeapparent which arguthe within and evidence, situation Through of to one eachperspective tends favor metafunctionar- ment being is made. in studlisted the For over other. example, cognitive of with gument Beginning a handsearch references in and relevant described "a rhetorical as theterms is of reviews research ies,argument often argumenusing & 2002,p. 321) tative language reading, English argumentative (Reznitskaya Anderson, writing, logicalform" we & and scheme oras an argumentation Britt, Butler, arts, jour(Wolfe, writing, identified reading, college in and research writing reading tool (Yeh,1998)lead- nalsthat (e.g., 2009)appliedas an evaluation publish in Research theTeaching Research models Reading of Quarterly, ingto theformulation cognitive-processing as Written and ofEnglish, in for instruction argumentative Communication)wellas journals reading guiding of on a research from socialperspective thatpublishresearch a widerarray topics(e.g., writing. Conversely, SchoolJournal). The Discourse teachers students and tendsto assumethat Processes, Elementary negotiate

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

275

In we manualshelf onlinesearches readingand writing. our review, adopta diaand We then conducted articles data-based logicapproach explore to alternative frameworks a of that ofalljournals publish reporting andwriting. Given cognitive and a socialperspective aron on research argumentative reading perspective studies argu- gumentation consider of limited number empirical of to useful contributions both of therather in arts/ frameworks wellas tensions mentative andwriting English as between two.We the reading language in therefore classrooms we and the as that, reviewers, must published adopted stance reading collegewriting we adopted generous a viewofwhat engagein ourowncollaborative refereed that journals, argument, is, as an and constituted empirical to the of work, someofthestudies a dialogue enhance understandingargument: information methodology. "People with included cursory about talk eachother, listen eachother, to only argue We also expandedoursearch includestudies to that witheach other, mutually and decidewhether diaa in were books. the of scholarly published edited logueis possibleand,ifitis,howfar usefulness to our We alsowant make extends eachinterlocutor" for explicit stance regarding that (Bloome, dialogue various and sometimes research & Christian, Otto, Shuart-Faris, p. 206). 2005, perspec- Carter, competing research methods and analysis the for tivesshaping of and of readstudy teaching learning argumentative in Teaching and writing. literacy As and Challenges scholars, researchers, ing and Writing our is framed sociocultural ArgumentativeReading teachers, work primarily by discussions argumentative of and reading theories reading writing share Refocusing of and that psychological as collaborative socialpractices moves beyond theassumption tounderstand peopletakeup writing that how of the conceptions teaching persuasive essay intheir ownlives, traditional andmakesenseofliteracy practices argumentative to what essay researchers seek understand culturally must to how and ortheposition/support to that literacy," is,not situated are recon- Langer(2002)referred as "high historically meanings constructed, but of justbasicliteracy a "deeper knowledge theways and social mediation structed, transformed through in which and work reading, writing, language, content Froma literacy 1978; 1998). prac(Vygotsky, Wertsch, and together" 3).In a recent (p. report, Applebee Langer we as ticeperspective, perceive argumentationa social on students' writing performance the that take (2006)examined writers, (i.e., readers) practice agents speakers, National Assessment Educational of (NAEP) Progress suchas classrooms, up in activity settings, usingthe 1998 2002.Perhaps to most relevant ourreview to meansofsemiotic tools(e.g., written from mediated speech, is a concern that reApplebeeand Langerexpressed and and diagrams, drawings) that agents melanguage, thetypes writing teachers of that as assigned, diational meansform basicunitofanalysis un- garding the for andJin Daane, (2003): by the of development. reported Persky, derstanding genesis psychological thewidely assumption knowledge held that Despite over ofthestudents Grade anda third Grade12 at 8 at 40% in andmeaning exist making only themindortheexor at report writing essays analysis interpretation requiring we theseprocesses social as ternal world, understand most few a times year. a Thisis problematic itis this since in and also negotiated socialpractices, as of that for resulting the type more complex writing is needed advanced in academic school wellas college as coursesuccess high in and usesofargumentative reading writing particular work. andLanger, 2006, 8) thanperceiving events (Applebee p. (Barton, 2007).Rather literacy theargumentative of processes goal formucognitive As a result, of recent studies students' lation elaboration schemaapplication in the and or as writing perreveal thatonlya fraction students of noted a socio- formance that individual (i.e., mind, (2011) Smagorinsky can make 6% cultural defines these as 3% ofeighth graders, of 12th graders) processes perspective cognitive critical aboutwritten (Perie, text informed, judgments tools tie mediated cultural that cognitionthe to setting of by & stuGrigg, Donahue,2005).Only15%of12th-grade is in and mentation; thinkingsituated settings is insepara- dents at level performing theproficient wereable to blefrom particular purposes, the tasks, addressees, genres write tookclear essaysin whichthey well-organized ofactivity, other factors communicative and of imporand thosepositions, supported positions consistently I in tance.... when study to and cognition relation writing transitions leadthereader to from part the one of I need other forms composition, tosituate thinking using of that et the to Moreover, (Perie al, 2005). within communitiespractice might disciplinary, essay another of that be given inandwriting inandmedi- needtointegrate andotherwise reading argumentative community-based, originating inteaching one is ated specific forms cultural of struction, major 406-407) by practice, (pp. challenge argument that advanced readstudents difficulty have mastering our in and skillsin core Suchassumptions position perspective some- ingcomprehension critical literacy in and critiquing with timesoverlapping, sometimes or sometimes disciplines associated parallel, engaging in exclusive with and mutually relationships thelogicsofin- effective arguments, especially science, history, in usedbyresearchersthestudy argumentativeliterature of & Snow, Council 2004;Carnegie (Biancarosa quiry
276 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

in on Advancing Adolescent for 2010;Rampey, thefive-paragraph format preparation stanLiteracy, essay also tests(Hillocks,2002).Formulating Dion,& Donahue,2009).Students havedifficulty dardizedwriting text to and abouttexts not argumentative structures arguments requires onlytheability recognizing applying Freedman& Pringle, identify provide evi& Murphy, sufficient and 2002; relevant, (Chambliss supporting and offer- dencefrom text also theability makeexplicit evidence(Kuhn, 1991), to a but 1984),generating and to the or reasons, counterarguments, rebuttals thewarrants assumptions linking thesis the ingrelevant world litand on reasons evidence drawing lived and (McCann,1989). by in difficultiesreading erary for One explanation students' Kahn,& Walter, 2009), (Johannessen, knowledge is andwriting in for students reading that teaching argumentation something is difficult many arguments that unlikeother and demanding. is complex et texts First, types andwriting (Persky al, 2003). a involves and ofreading writing students tasks, However, argumentation maynotacquiresuchliteracy with practices set more favor narrative often whentheir textbooks compared practices sophisticated ofgenre of in a narration exposition that range genres and ones(Calfee texts (e.g., andexplanatory over argumentative instruction This formalist sermons, letters, testimonials) & Chambliss, reports, essays, speeches, 1987). reading theformalist mayalso limit as can function arguments, arto critically students' challenging analyze ability is notion there a single that on In texts. herresearch 12th essay argumentative genre gumentative apgraders' form Chambliss of Thus,teachers notalways plication argumentative 1996). may (Freedman, macroprocesses, are and what content procedural know these with claim, no a that found when knowledge re- (1995) given text and writ- older for onthe a based were toinferclaim able teen readers reading argumentative quired learning is there widespread datainthetext, were less claims their Second, 1999, 2010). ing(Hillocks, although inferred a often to maintain accurate that when In in than claims thetext. another try agreement schoolteachers study, zone conflict-free whenitcomesto learning to were asked respond an arto and (Powell, fourth fifth graders the suchthat & the of but Farrar, Cohen, 1985), maintaining peace gumentative they text, couldinfer gist it, most and werenotableto applyan argumentative overfostering takesprecedence for structure disagreements that of sources conflict mayarisewhen representing understandingthetext other of their possible (Chambliss and & Murphy, reading writing. teaching argumentative 2002). conflicted to relates students' Another Teachersmay also have difficulty challenge articulating for and audiences formu- rulesofevidence ofthepurposes thatgovern perceptions argumenhigh-quality in and (Durst,1999; tative setting lating arguments a classroom 1992; (Kuhn,2005;Langer, reading writing Graff, 2003; Kuhn, 2005). In thatsetting, such Fundamental although Langer Applebee, & 1987). concepts or outside as causality proof, be askedto convince students for or evidence warrants claims, and peers may also assumptions can be taken granted, premstudents of audiences thevalidity their of claims, and for that audienceis isesthat actualprimary their knowthattypically lie and be must madeexplicit defended atthe of whoneedsto be convinced thevalid- heart effective their teacher, writof Studies school of argumentation. are ingandreading if of claims, are that performances havedocumented teachers ofespecially their ity their In evaluated States, tenunaware theseconcepts 1981, 1984). theUnited and thusdo notknow (Applebee, of of2,000collegewrit- howto provide Melzer's(2009)national survey for such instructional support learning found that writing concepts(Applebee, only17%involved ingassignments 2007, 2010; 1991;Hillocks,1999, than other audiences for purposesfor Shanahan& argumentative 1992; Langer& Applebee,1987; Langer, as theteacher. Withtheteacher theprimary audience, Shanahan,2008).One response theseconcerns is to as students perceive writing simply Kuhn's(2005) argumentative may on ofresearch thedevelopment program to thanattempting of rather an completing assignment a to inwhich attempted construct she argumentation, or beliefs ideas.Students actual audiences' other . change that of roadmap theskills needtodevelop... "cognitive to for their evaluated demonstrating ability en- teachers arethen if are need sucha roadmap they to planand the without experiencing potential implement gagein argument and instruction assessitssuccess" effective of oftheeffectiveness their arguments (pp. 116-117). consequences their from actualaudiences basedon feedback beyond & Reiser, feedback teacher's Moreover, 2009). (Berland be- Toward an Interactive Theory of stances they that to students be reluctant adopt may lieve their teacher notendorse ArgumentativeReading and Writing 2006). (Beck, may we instructional someofthese a formal- To meet has Another challenges, bechallenge to do with largely andwritof that study argumentative the instruction lieve andwriting of istorientation much reading reading an to for that (cf. theory requires interactive learning makemain ingin schoolsettings emphasizes, example, as of the that combines study argument texts or aboutexpository narrative in Flower, inferences 1989) point as withargument a set ofsocial practices. tests learning cognition or for standardized reading preparation
277

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

research assumes the morebalanced,multiis, Currently, literacy competing images arguefor first, need for ofargumentation reflectcognitive/social that a andmore practic- perspective descriptions rigorously grounded that and es polarization limits of understanding threatens theoretical explanations variousaspectsofteachto divide study argumentative the of and and writing. reading writ- ingand learning argumentative reading with ofseparation between and Second, these tobuildintegrated, ing increasing degrees attempts theory-contheories. paradigmatic This divide the scious of accounts reading writing and we need, believe, among suggests needtounderstand fully cognitive more how of and processes to addresstheapparent dichotomy cognition and socialpractices in fact do in interact specific but socialpractices a direct in of wayand in a spirit open situations. do these How different It be to the significant processes inquiry. would simple frame issuesinterms andpractices on one another? intention feed Our here ofa conflict, much thecurrent as of discussion tends to is nottopropose specific a but some do. This review organized is aroundan effort look to theory to explore and first within then and between cognitive the and, by extension, waysthatresearch teaching perspective from howresearch in and thesocialpractices to learning benefit may considering perspective askhowteachschoolsettings create well-supported, can a theoreti- ingmight the of improve quality argumentative reading cal understanding thisinteraction studies the andwriting. of in of and of and teaching learning argumentative reading an exploration couldalsoapply all areas that to writing, ofliteracy research. Common Ground: The fundamental tension seebetween we studies of Finding within cognitive a versus socialprac- Cognitive and Social Conceptions a argumentation tices orientation seemstooccuraround issueofthe of Transfer the unit Howcan a cognitive comappropriate ofanalysis. A primary focus ourreview on twodifferent of is paramitment understanding to individual and purpose selfnotions whatconstitutes of transfer what or digmatic be with regulated learning strategies reconciled a social Beach (1999)refers as consequential to transicommitment thestudy literacy to of events King practices tions between across and rhetorical events. identify We andpractices or social, cultural, po- two shaped specific by that in positions haveemerged debates regarding litical the vision Moreover, interactive also research a perspectives? on rangeofdifferent issuesinvolving litneedsto inform instruction. we literacy Although are in general and teaching and learning the frameworks,eracylearning suggesting usesofmultiple conceptual in and The argumentative reading writing particular. thecommon howreaders and writgoal is studying first frames as task position argument a cognitive (e.g., ersunderstand themselves constructorsmeaning as of & taskAnderson, Kuo, 2007)requiring within socialand cultural events can both Reznitskaya, that unique such and solvspecific knowledge, as planning problem nurture consume individual and an writer. and ing,and recognition use ofa modelofargument Educators notwork do with abstractions; work they as unit Toulmin, 1958/2003) theprimary ofanalywith students. Teachers need an interactive visionof (e.g., sis. The secondpositionframes as argument social thereading writing and that the arguments can address that focuses Lunsford, 2002;Prior, 2005) (e.g., hurdles students face, canaccount the practices that often that for on socialcontexts literacy or that events, is, "framing and of success failure, and cognitive socialsources both classroom research peopleacting reacting one as and to and that talkabouttheexperience reading can of and another" & Goldman, (Bloome,Beierle, Grigorenko, finegrained writing arguments beingadequately by unit From our 2009, 314)as theprimary ofanalysis. p. in and situated that We toexperience. wantto work weperceive these different heuristic, positions ward framework acknowledges pressures a that the and dialogic as alternative, potentially and research complementary, thepotential theliteracy that event provide at can and different ofinquiry perspectives (Gee & defining logics thesametimeexplains howreaders writers and nego- Green, interms & Zaharlick, 1998; Green, Dixon, 2003) tiate that create their owngoals,and developa event, ofhowtheoretical on assumptions shaperesearch comsenseofthemselves problem as or solvers, speakers, andproduction argumentative of texts. prehension whocreate and other subjects meaning affect people the through arguments readandwrite. they Withina Cognitive Perspective In asking an examination howresearch for of on Transfer and socialpractices we Although differences between thesepositions cerare interact, cognitive processes do notwant suggest we needa single to that of tainly morenuanced,a cognitive image approach typically and and an or teaching learning argumentative reading writ- employs experimental quasiexperimental design is transfer instruction theuse ofcertain in of ingora single integrated theory; literacy toocomplex to examine a phenomenon, history us that and tells visions argument or claims, single strategies tactics (e.g., promaking for long. Whatwewould viding evidence, sources, rarely satisfy many people very referencing counterarguing)
278 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

of or written andschema structure claim, reasons, warrants) improving explicit teaching argu(e.g., arguments, did effects to writing recalling argumentative Forex- ment nothavetheintended or an by predicted the essay. text Students' recalloftheargumentative of examinetheeffects in- researchers: researchers ample, might conditions. across three the of on related theformulation didnotdiffer to struction goal setting on schema claimsand audiences identifying claims,reasons, theory, Reznitskaya Drawing argument by for extwo attention cognitive to de- et al. (2007)considered explanations why with andwarrants particular reflecdid the instruction notimprove students' in in differencestheability engage these plicit to velopmental of and use (1) essays: "awareness therules, theattempt 2005).Or,students' ofcollabora- tive (Kuhn, strategies haveinterfered thestudents' with classroom discus- to apply in school tive them, might reasoning elementary to moreargumentand motivation generate in of of sionsmaybe analyzed terms transfer acquired ability in negative transfer" relevant and statements, to (p. resulting comprehension comstratagems their argument with and (2) students' experiences school-like et of past (Reznitskayaal, 2007). 467), position written arguments with from cognitive the conducted Studies may perspective argumentation haveledtointerference learnin included thecollaboranewprinciples were that and ing students learnargumentative assume that reading discussions of tivereasoning plus lessonson argument knowledge task-specific acquiring writing through In treatment condition. and or or modeling scaffolding. structures theprinciples' through strategies schemata schema theowithin argumentative their with factors for To control different judgment, interacting orinde- our makes sense. et andwriting, ry, Reznitskaya al.'sanalysis reading shaping argumentative pendently would we thattheir However, think explanation within theseassumptions examine researchers experiof from socialpractice a theory argutotest effects havebenefited the or mental quasi-experimental designs turned to be a out to in why"transfer inherent such mentation explain The ofinstruction. logicofinquiry et (Reznitskaya al., 2007, phenomenon" of is to assumethepossibility identi- moreelusive research designs in differences classroom for in between instruction cognitive p. 469).Perhaps, example, direct transfer fying in the and contexts theliteracy practices which students and or outcomes, strategies schemata reading/writing reto thatis,rehearsed had engaged, prior thestudy, facfor that as wellas assuming one can control other in of sulted more lesstransfer collaborative or reasoning et that tors Yeh, (Reznitskaya al, 2007; shaping transfer the conditions. and Onlylong-term in instruc- within across three However, 1998). designs which experimental consideration of studiesand in-depth observational transfer do are to interventions assumed promote tional the wouldclarify within classrooms practices and literacy of illuminate process teaching the notnecessarily In results thequasifor experimental study. ambiguous events. classroom within literacy unique learning is howtransfer after thefollowing sections, describing is to for A keyquestion related transfer, instance, in and studied thesocialpractices peraboutthestructural whether components conceptualized knowledge and we how in of transfersimprovements spective, consider cognitive socialnotions to orprinciples arguments in and one oftransfer differ complement another both and students' espearguments, understanding writing andwriting. of thestudy argumentative reading One who for knowledge. way cially students lackthat is transfer howitmaybe affected disto consider by The rhetorical contexts. newlearning TransferWithina Social Perspective between parities in from orperformanceevent can also differ original A socialperspective to and shifts focus thenature the in event and dif- quality thesociocultural A in of itself mediated as of context learning terms participation in different identities persona, byuses oforal,analysis, or ferences adopting and discourse, visual, genre, that digital and thatareso pronounced rhetoolsdesigned achievecertain to purposes, audiences literacy transfer breaks down. on draws sociallittorical goals.The socialperspective in In a study transfer of and situated performance theteaching eracy(Street, (Gee,2004; 1995) cognition and and learning argumentation, of on theories focus how to Reznitskaya col- Lave& Wenger, 1991) learning three different in interaction learners socialpractices (2007) postintervention designed leagues acquire through transferab- events activities. contrast muchexperimenof to fourth fifth and tasks measure In to and graders' for to and stract in constructs instructhe principles argument reading writing. talresearch which researcher different conditions tional, The students assigned three were to to a study contexts rhetorical design according in structural to related differencesacquiring and researchers tasks audiences, knowledge with adopting assigned in and versus aboutargument (1) engaging argument: a col- a socialpractice qualitative ethnoposition employ from graphic as moral issues contexts condiscussion about research methods examine to laborative reasoning discussions structed teachers students and a short collaborative 2008). (Lillis, (2) story, reasoning by within research transfer on As described structures principles, and previously, plus lessonson argument of often focuses transfer on results thecognitive arid(3) routine classroom instruction. perspective Although with emphasis an acrosstasks in knowledge schemata or the demonstrated valueofcollaborative reasoning

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

279

onindividual suchas represenprocesses psychological tational and thederivation of analogy, generalization, schemata "Individual 1995; (Dansereau, 1995). Pressley, is to to the agency assumed havelittle do with creation ofsocialcontexts transfer, as changes supporting just in contexts presumed havelittle do with are to to how individuals learn develop and across them" Beach, (K. Morerecently, has 1999, 102-103). however, transfer pp. in beendefined terms notonlyknowledge scheof or mata alsosocialpractices toolsacross but and events or contexts & Pearson, that foster 1999) (Iran-Nejad may As and noted, (1995) learning. Marini Gnreux
atonetime another importanceeachbasic or the of element - task, oftransfer andcontext hasbeenemphalearner, sizedbyeducational theorists. Given that eachelement a role transfer all into plays key inthe process, taking three account when instructionmost is advisable. A designing in trend this towardmore a wholistic to direction, approach is apparent, 5) transfer, achieving (p.

Researchers transfer tooluse across of analyzing events contexts or focuson variation uses ofsocial in andtoolsin different events contexts. or For practices studies of 2008)ethnographic example, Dyson's(1995, students' demonstrated students difthat in writing ferent classrooms learn write different and to in ways, in students thesameclassrooms learndifferent stratdifferent She egiesand prefer genres. used themetathis phorofa "sea ofvoices"to explainhowand why happens:
The appropriation ofwords thedeliberate and decision to or in usethem not particular involves decisions about ways about whotheauthors tobe as they want oriitself, being ent themselves in others a sea ofvoices. among Becoming of aware how textual link [and options practices] tosocial andideological alternativesdependent interaction is on with others inthe 2000, positioned differently sea. (Dyson, pp.59-60)

are in Researchers alsoparticularly interested how inrecontextualization learners 1996; (Bernstein, engage 1999;van Leeuwen,2008) or relocalization Dyson, collaborative to a reasoning appears provide socialcontext recontextualize 2010), is, (Pennycook, that howlearners inwhich children abletorepeatedly spontaneously are and orrelocalize uses ofsocialpractices wellas exthe as of[sic] tools thinking appropriate tools use for and new from and assumptions aboutthetopicand about pectations oneanother from teacher. children and their As in improve what counts aneffective as when in argument operating reach level independence cona of and argumentation, they a newornovel localevent. small-scale studHowever, in sciousness using these tools, 227) (p. ieswith small numbers students questions: of raise Are in thedescriptions a qualitative a et analysis meaningful Notethat Jadallah al. (2001)wereableto makethis of couldhappen across other instruc- claimbywarranting conclusions their theoretical description what using tionalevents? Does theeffectiveness say,instruc- framing focused cognitive on andsocialpracof, processes tional for and notion students' of scaffolding argumentative writing reading tices: (1995/2008) Rogoffs approprithat revealed onestudy in is in differ itseffects other ationofunderstanding socialpractices on via whenthey of takepartinjointactivities their with or groups students? parents other
280 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

Each ofthesetworesearch the perspectives, cognitive andthesocial, carries itcertain with about assumptions research methods studying for and transfer learning ofargument, each has clearimplications curand for riculum instruction. and studies the of Using empirical and learning argumentative of conteaching writing in ducted grades K-12 and college classrooms, writing we delineate assumptions drive twoperthe that the and instructional spectives their consequences, arguing that researchers teachers and needan articulated unof aboutknowledge and derstanding their assumptions transfer establish clearand coherent to a relationship between andpractice. theory We do notperceive theseas necessarily contradicbutrather complementary as tory perspectives, perthatcan each contribute understanding to spectives theteaching learning argumentative and of and reading arealways ofhowpeowriting. Cognitive processes part to when ple actandreact eachother socially, including discuss issuesanddebate ideasimportant them. to they we the from social the Although distinguish cognitive in ourreview studies argumentative of of and reading we that classroom diswriting, also recognize during teachers students and assumethat cussions, cognitive areinvolved composing understandin and processes as senseofthediscussion. ingtexts wellas in making classroom suchas coldiscussion, Through processes laborative andinferential are reasoning thinking made et al, 2009;Kucan& Beck,2003)and public(Bloome transferablenewcontexts tasks. to and perhaps A recent and colleagues(2011) study Jadallah by a for of suggestedresearch agenda thestudy argumentative and from reading writing aninteractive perspective. In their of movesduring study a teacher's scaffolding collaborative at they reasoning, looked simultaneously thereasoning movesthatstudents and appropriated theinteractional context theteacher students that and coconstructedmake to effective collaborative reasoning that possible, concluding

Interactionof the Two Perspectives in the Study of Transfer

reasonsand formulate of and adults, Chirm's (2006)notion themicrogenetic supporting counterarguments researchersexamine to both generated method allows that aschange quality essaysthandid students higher and to writeusingmoregenericgoals (Ferretti, qualitatively quantitatively. signed & MacArthur, Dowdy, 2000). in In another seventh eighth and study, graders an to (a) produce were condition given goals experimental Research on Argumentative their reasons (b) premises, produce supporting essays' Reading and WritingWithin or refutations alternative of standpoints, (c) produce a Cognitive Perspective in both,whereasstudents a control groupwerenot & Graham, on 1999). any goals (Page-Voth Much,butnotall, oftheresearch argumentative given specific in half em- Further, ofthestudents theexperimental a within cognitive and group perspective reading writing whereon instruction formulating to received and arguments, designs experimental quasi-experimental ploys who Students no half in of examinetheeffects instruction uses ofvarious as theother received instruction. of on the orschemata thequality argumentativereceived goal instruction quality higher generated strategies buildson argumentative a & in (Felton Kuhn,2001), focusthat writing essaysthandid students thecontrol for- condition; models composing of for in was there no difference essayquality processing cognitive previous and 1980s(Haas & Flower, in mulated the1970s 1988; students versusthosewho instruction who received were and whenfifth eighth 1980). did not.Similarly, Hayes& Flower, graders conditions a general to one ofthree goal,a assigned in content Studies of Goal Formulation goalgroup students goal,and an audience weremore and boththecontent audience goalgroups in ArgumentativeReading and Writing to their to leading writing, argumentative to likely revise is One keyfocusin thisresearch students' ability audience who students received quality writing; to formulate goals higher goalsrelated claimsand formulate to more opposing likely consider goalswere the awareness on effects audiences, to related intended particularly Haria,& MacArthur, 2008). of on in (Midgette, of effects variations specificity thequality post- perspectives indicate thespecificity that thesestudies that test Although essays. argumentative Basedontheassumption students' influences enhance ofgoal formulation audience consider students argumentagoalswould having reother of references tivewriting providing and of clarity purpose, by recognition counterarguments direct factors are that indicates there other and Graham(1998)as- search to audiences, Harris, Sexton, influencing in differ- students' whereas to students three For fifth- eighth-grade and writing the writing. instance, signed defined different - a elaborated conditions in enttreatment resulted higher condition goals by quality goal and and learnand content, a essays bothfourth sixth for improving goal,a goalinvolving general graders for ar- ingdisabledstudents and content audience for of combination goalsfor versusnon-learning disabled, in Students thethird students theelaborated on thetopic. did in writing gumentative goal condition notemand content audience, ploydetailed treatment condition, to of formulation alternative goals for arguments and toentertain refute were more posi- refute opposing likely did becausethey not thosearguments, possibly students wantto lendcredence thosealternative in two tions thanstudents theother groups; to arguments eswrote and inboththeaudience thecontent groups & Andrews -Weckerly, Lewis 2007). Their (Ferretti, thandid students saysjudgedto be morepersuasive in revealed 70%ofthevariance thequalthat were analysisstudents' inthegeneral groups; essays eighth graders' goal to couldbe attributed theuse ofthe essays thanwerethoseofthe ity judgedto be morepersuasive as elements argument, opposedtodemoof ofspecific fifth graders. and vs. fourth sixth) level(i.e., of factors grade of graphic have also examinedthe effects Researchers vs. disabled non-learning disabled). disability (learning of in variation theelaboration assigned goalsin writ- Students based mostfrequently employed arguments that based on theassumption more ingassignments of oftheconsequences adoptbenefit analysis with morespecific on coststudents elaborated goalsprovide from examan whereas argument policy, inga certain for aboutpurposeand audience formulatscaffolding were classification more slope,andverbal ple,slippery more In students given arguments. onestudy, ingtheir the However, students' arguemployed. elaborated higher infrequently generated goals fortheirwriting to ments were perceived be relatively still undeveloped, qualitypersuasiveessays than studentswho were in instruction acquirthe strategy nonelaborated goals (Nussbaum& Kardash, suggesting needfor given to related who ing students and fourth- sixth-grade designed bolster knowledge background 2005).Similarly, et reasons(Ferretti al.,2007; of more thequality supporting to were essays argumentative with assigned write basedontheneedtoprovide Graham, 2006). elaborated, specific goals
A Readingand Writing: Reviewof Research Argumentative Teachingand Learning 281

Reading and Writing Integrating ArgumentInstruction

usethese to their schemata structure essays, suggesting of evidence transfer reading writing. examfrom to For in instructionidentifying features argumentative of A primary task is focusofcognitive research howin- ple, texts students textual cues helped12th-grade identify in reading argumentative transfers of texts struction toidentify argument the claimevidence relastructure, thosetexts(Bergmann Zepernick, & to writing 2007; andformulation argument ofthe (Chambliss, have the Researchers examined relation- tionships, Wardle, 2007). 1995). in students' ability interpreting This focuson reader shipbetween reading schemata leads to issuesof texts andwriting (Grate, Melero, Echevarria, how Tejerina, ofschemata content wellas or as prior knowledge Sadoski Paivio, & & Gutierrez, Parodi, 2007; 2007; 2001), attitudes influence and writing argumentaof reading as wellas howwriting texts argumentative transfers tive For readers writers adopt and essays. example, may backto reading thosetexts(Wiley& Voss,1999). a In a myside against bias that information supports opposwere to large-scale study, eighth graders assigned write writers failto include to couningarguments, leading an essaybasedon a specific text purpose, type, topic, informulating ownpositions their (Wolfe terarguments and as nineopenaudience, register, wellas to answer & Britt, Research theinfluence myside on of bias 2008). in endedquestions response argumentative to texts onwriting found college that students were who quality indicated over(Parodi, 2007).The results significant morelikely applyschemata recognition reto for and all correlation microstructural (0.72)between (0.57), buttal ofsupporting evidence generated higher quality macrostructural and superstructural psy(0.68), (0.79) and favorable of than essays more perceptions thewriter for and cholinguistic processing comprehension pro- did students did notinclude who evidence; opposition of duction argumentative As readers writers, texts. and tutorials on schemata focusing use ofargumentative were students better to comprehend produce able and their formulationclaimsand reasons of and in texts terms localcoherence, lessableto inter- improved of but reduced bias (Wolfe al, 2009).It is also the et myside or structures becauseof case that pret composeargumentative thedegree which to readers change will their or or graders' memory eighth challenges inferring em- beliefs a function the is of degree which to texts contain links macrostructural basedon recognition of ploying their and refutations, levelofinterest comprehensibiltheoverall structure. and thedegree which to howtheir they recognize In a study theeffects reading of of instruction on ity, biasesinfluence own their of data analysis supporting 11students argumentative writing, and 12-year-old & (Chambliss Garner, 1996). wereassigned one offour to a groups: groupthatreStudents also benefit from instruction involvmay ceivedprocess-oriented a instruction,group writing of ing analysisofthe wording claims,forexample, that received -oriented instruction process writing plus analyzing howclaimpredicates worded assess are to of a that texts, group received claim-reason reading analysis pro/con When askedto ratetheir arguments. thesamereading but instruction, analysis no writing with suchas "recycling should agreement arguments and a control of 1990). group(Crowhurst, Analysis the be federally mandated becauseithelpsprotect enthe found thestudents that posttest argumentative essays and is becauseit vironment," "recycling cost-effective inthewriting instruction writing/reading and instructheenvironment" 61),and thenrehelpsprotect (p. tion did better in groups significantly thanstudents the call theseclaims,76%ofundergraduate participants and the reading analysis control groups, suggesting val- accurately recalledthe predicateof the claim but ue ofintegrating and instruction. reading writing weremoreaccurate recalling gistor themeof in the theclaim(Britt al, 2008).The ability recall et to these is in Argumentative Reader Schema while reason the predicates important that given In a study readingof Voss the relationships, (2005) in thesetwoclaims,"becauseithelpsprotect enwriting examined how students from the need claim,students acquire reading argu- vironment," supports first mentative schemata composing for the abouttherelationship beclaims,reasons, to unpack assumptions in their and For tweencost-effectiveness protecting environand the warrants, counterarguments writing. in readers writers and for is claims, example, analyzing may ment thesecondclaim,"recycling cost-effective of the applyschemaexpectations theme(topic /subject), becauseithelpsprotect environment," requiring side (pro/con), predicate(position)of a claim their and awareness theneed to interrogate warof that & claim-reasonrelationships. Taken Dandotkar, Wolfe, (Britt, 2008).Whenread- rantssupporting Kurby, ersrespond to thenuse these as whole, thesefindings the negatively a claim, they suggest needfor reading schemata searchfor to of familiar instruction unpacking in or unexamples relevant assumptions warrants women shouldhavetheright to derlying claim-reason arguments that (e.g., relationships. make their ownchoices abortion), they on or In a series of threestudies,Larson, Britt, and maygenerate their counterarguments. own As writers, then Kurby the instruction they (2009)examined use oftutorial

282

Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

of versus nonflawed claims Effectsof Collaborative Reasoning involving analysis flawed of and schoolstudents' on college high comprehension Discussions on Argumentative Reading In their first and in claim-reason relationships. predicates Writing Larsonand colleaguesexaminedtheuse of a study, related theintegrato line One significant ofresearch students' tutorial college for analysis tionof paper-and-pencil and writing, discussingfocuseson reading, claims(e.g.,"banksshouldn't of "acceptable" charge collaborative to discussions designed help un- students reasoning customers ATM fees becausethefeesmakemany for strategies acquireand adopt argument shouldn't transfer "banks claims(e.g., "unwarranted" happy"), et toreading writing and (Reznitskayaal, 2007, instichargeATM feesbecause banksare financial Anderson colleagues and (2001)exam2009).Richard claims (e.g., "banks inedtheextent whichuses of and "unsupported" tutions"), and to cognitive interATM fees"; 348).Although 61% actional shouldn't only p. charge in involved collaborative reasoning processes on accurate check- discussions were students initially ofthecollege stratand rhetorical influenced reasoning able egies.After the after 80% a linesoftranscribed over14,000 taking tutorial, were ingfor reason, analyzing in to did to do so,butthey notimprove their in discussions fourthfrom ability re- discussions small-group their confirmed the arguments. classrooms, researchers jectunwarranted grade com- notion a snowball In thesecondexperiment, in which students of collegestudents phenomenon, tutorial thatprovidedfeedback appropriated variety argument from of a pleted a computer stratagems ofunwarranted/ their with on usedthestrategies inthetutorial their time, and,over analysis during peers of the claims. versus Analysis the creasing By frequency. tracking uses ofstrategies acceptable unsupported that found difin the whoreceived over time discussions, researchers thatstudents indicated recallaccuracy as opposedtojustthesamestudents, who ferent thanstudents moreaccurate were thefeedback students, these feed- were of the did not, indicating employing strategies, increasingly suggesting importance providing use wereacquiring ofargumentative that students the was the back.Forthethird study, tutorial converted & to 2002). and to a Web-basedtutorial administered 50 ad- schemata (ReznitskayaAnderson, in fifth In an experimental enrolledin engaged school students study, graders vancedplacement high a over five-week insmall collaborative reasoning groups and critical courses Initially, reading writing. involving fostered in in on could accurately 70%ofthestudents claims; period issuesportrayed stories which, analyze eachothers' students challenged coaching, the after an additional improved completing tuto- byteacher 10% and (Reznitskaya counterarguments diffi- claims formulated students' that rial.This research suggests given of essays argumentative Analysis posttest write et al, 2001). in to in claims, order argument culty critiquing in found participation thecollaborative that reasoning as essays, theyneed feedback wellas resulted a argumentative number arguments of in significantly higher in instruction distinguishing acceptable and rebuttals wellas references thestories structurally than to as in from they were arguments texts arguments unacceptable in in written students thecontrol found essays by arereading. textsis also group. of Students' writing argumentative In a morerecentstudy, Kim, Dong, Anderson, of influenced prior typesofargu- and Li reading certain by in reasoning a (2008)examinedcollaborative the In for in ments preparation writing. assessing va- non-Western "that the to setting question assumption in of mayrelyon children's lidity arguments textA, students influences socialization of history language which couldbe biasedand un- thesuccess their knowledge, prior unfawith previously a achieve might they or couldreadtexts and C, which reliable, they pro- miliar conducted discourse (p. 401).Studies practice" to videcounterargumentstextA (Kobayashi, 2010). attwositesin Chinaand one in Koreafound the that have access to students This requiresnotonlythatstudents in use ofand wereengaged acquired readily texts that to are and/or willing seekoutother provide collaborative to similar results in a manner reasoning thenareable from but alternative they occurAfter arguments, also that studiesofU.S. students. counting the to contrast positionsin thesetexts,something rences arguments, and rebuttals of counterarguments, havedifficulty 2009).When in thestudents' reflective doing(Kobayashi, they Dong et. al. argued essays, dif- that "ways thinking texts readtwodifferent on four oral of the collegestudents during discusacquired issues in different ferent and wereinternalized orders, readingtextswith sion [collaborative reasoning] described transferredwritten moststudents to first, proorcon arguments (p. 421).Whatis not argument" in counthecompeting of counts arguments, their essays(Kobayashi, clearfrom arguments their frequency readto can that is and 2010).This suggests students drawon com- terarguments, rebuttals theextent which or more lesswellargued that intheir the erswouldfind essays (i.e., assuming they writing, peting arguments of the to whichthey theability orchestrate components a complex have access to competing perspectives, This conditions. acrosstheexperimental accessonline. can often argument)

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

283

to and served increase arguments counterarguments thequality thecounterarguments. providing of Thus, with students and specific goalinstructions requiring them reada text to before their increased writing essays their considerationcounterarguments. of In a related Nussbaumand experimental study, Schraw in students instruction cri(2007)gavecollege teria assessing for in or arguments instruction theuse ofa graphic that relaorganizer mapped thesis-support Students received criteria who the instruction tionships. for what constitutes effective an were argument better abletointegrate arguments counterarguments their and interms formulating of whereas students the rebuttals, whoreceived graphic the instruction showed organizer more refutations counterarguments. use ofthe of The seemedto haveencouraged of use graphic organizer an adversarial refutation stance on opposition focusing positions. Another Use of Outlines or Templates as Scaffolds experimental studyexaminedthe use of argumentation diagrams (AVDs) to foster vee Students benefit also from outlines templates or scafbased on a thedevelopment arguments counter- argument-counterargument of and integration folding with to analyzedifferent visualdepiction usinga V to scaffold arguments, arguments, including learning on sideofthe V,counterarguintexts. Students benefit from proarguments theleft argumentative strategies on at conclusions the side, and on ments theright andpotential beingable to metacognitively identify reflect & of use to determine their ofargumentative the bottom (Nussbaum Schraw, 2007).A comparison strategies use oftheAVD by collegestudents found thatthose effectiveness ofthosestrategies. study One comparing to their a group students labeled of who strate- usingitweremorelikely generate compromise poargument sitions changetheir and thanwerestudents as arguments, and positions evidence, challenges, gies supporting of versus group didnot a who labelargument whodid notuse it.Analysis theuse ofa prewriting explanations in AVD found useofitresulted significantly that found theformer that was greater strategies group more likely use ofargument-counterargument than than toformulate integration for (C. challenges thelatter group Brooks students didnotemploy AVD. This study who the also 2006). &Jeong, a of in identifiedstrategy minimization involved arguNussbaum Kardash(2005)conducted exand two that in directions college- ment-counterargument to integration, is,theability they provided periments which tocurtail minimize significance extensiveness or the or for different ofessays. the kinds In age students three or first the varied three treatments ofa problem issue. experiment, researchers In another students in terms thedirections provided: a control of experimental study, analyzed (1) they condition write essay an publicpolicyproblems portrayed onlyas text,as a ("please expressing opinyour or use tools condition write essayex- causaldiagram, through ofdiagramming an ion"),(2) a reason ("please their Provide many as reasons you for as Aleven, constructing owndiagram (Easterday, pressing opinion. your and to cantojustify position, try provide evidence & Scheines,2007).Based on students' analysesof a your students engaged use ofthe who in thatsupports and (3) a counterargu- textual argument, yourreasons"), causaldiagram were better to organize able their evidence supports ment condition that per("provide your in of thanwerestudents the Then discusstwoorthree reasons. reasons oth- ceptions thearguments why treatment. Students ersmight with and those reasons are text-only usingthediagramming you, why disagree more about causalarguments As expected, Nussbaum Kardash toollearned and constructing wrong"; 159). p. with or because found that instructions reduced num- thanstudents thetext causaldiagrams, the persuasion in with berofcounterarguments students: The thestudents thetoolwere actively engaged using by generated ittoconstruct arguments. their students believed thatidentifying counterarguments A rather in consistent is wouldmaketheir ownarguments persuasive. less In pattern thesestudies the infostering role thesecondexperiment, theresearchers however, by pro- significant played counterarguments vided text outlined a that numerous reflective consideration positions they of that on arguments both students' sidesoftheissue, thecontrasting counteracted hadassumed and text were correct. alsobenefited However, they thenegative of effects persuasion instructions. Results from use to the strategic ofscaffolds manage complexiindicated having text that a with different of tiesofweighing the types arguments against counterarguments. the of raisesissuesregarding construct validity point measures researchers' (Camp,1993). writing whether sucA somewhat similar considered study in oralcollaboration transfers to cessful participation A comparison stuof written successful argumentation. in learnthat dents a condition combined cooperative versus condition a with just question asking ingwith in found students thecooperthat cooperative learning ative condition more elaboemployed plusquestioning in and for rations, reasons, justifications their responses in their discussions didtheir than peers thecooperative condition & theseoral (Gillies Khan,2009).However, collaboration did to practices nottransfer thestudents' when wrote without collaborative they writing support. Thissuggests needtoconsider use ofmore the the collaborative that discuss we activities, writing something inmore in detail terms online of argumentative writing.
284 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

in & in changes their (Laurinen Marttunen, diagrams Computer-Scaffolding Tools of also 2007).Students drewon their prior knowledge Researchers also examined use ofcomputerhave the to the the issue evokedthrough collaboration make or mind-mapping,script organizer, scaffolding graphic the in suggesting impordiagrams, or- modificationstheir serve scaffold to and/or toolsthat visually prompt of transformation as tanceofcollaboration fostering et (Andriessen al., 2003;Erdurai ganize arguments on an issue. & Jimnez-Aleixandre, Shum, & knowledge 2008; Kirschner, of the A related study compared effects participain Pinkwart McLaren, press; & Carr, 2003; Stegmann, veronline in tion an asynchronous (control) argument review an & 2007;for extensive Weinberger, Fischer, tool notation theuse ofa graph plus on ofresearch use ofthesetools,see Scheuer, Loll, sus participation in students couldadd Forexample, ofcom- usingnodesand arrows, which use & McLaren, Pinkwart, 2010). between connections for arguto designed assistmiddle chatboxes identifying scaffolding puter graphics tool notion and another use versus ofthegraph for in evidence problem- ments schoolstudents formulating to students click allowed tool discussion that effects threaded had solution positive relationships significant own their werewriting as When on thegraphmaterial they onthestudents' 2010). (Belland, argumentation & material Medina, Joseph, Dwyer, (Suthers, Vatrapu, a with were students provided mapsversus text college were more in two the 2008).Students thelatter conditions who the of version an argument, students employed in earlier theprocess their to formulate positions the able better to recall different aspectsof likely mapswere in students thanwere on the andelaborate thosepositions who the than an argument were students employed condition. thediscussion-only in was there no difference comtext version, although the havealso examined use ofonline Researchers & Stewart, 2010). Analysis Hogan, (Dwyer, prehension suchas InterLoc, AcademicTalk, at argument systems, assisted oftheuse ofcomputermapping argument Forum, Carneades, Knowledge Argunaut that level indicated theuse ofthismapping Araucaria, thecollege Theseus,Digalo,Rationale, Athena, for with Truthmapping, students useful support formulating provided use and to Me, designed foster scaffold in of (Davies, and Convince disciplines arguments a range different collaborative ofproductive (Andriessen, argumentation 2009). et et on- 2006;Scheuer al, 2010;Stegmann al, 2007).For to can also serve organize Graphic organizers discussionsby helpingstudents example,building on Scardamalia and Bereiter's line argumentative of construction, to their and knowledge document portray arguments as- (1994)notions scaffolding visually InterLoc(www.interloc.org.uk/) thosearguments providesstudents sistin formulating collaboratively starters of (e.g.,"I think...," 2009). witha selection sentence (Dowell,Tscholl,Gladisch,& Asgari-Targhi, "I because...,""Is there allowpeersto "Let me explain...," disagree is ofdiagrams that One advantage they formulaat intertex- another oflooking it.. .") that of shared prompt way perceptions thenonlinear, generate These onlineargument ofan argu- tionof arguments. different between systems tualrelationships aspects and with & ment interactivity bothimmediate 2003;vanAmelsvoort, can also foster (Suthers Hundhausen, alternative whoprovide audiences worldwide & perspecAndriessen, Kanselaar,2008). For example,fifth the For & on when tives issues(Wiley Bailey, moredevelopedarguments 2006). example, graders generated relaand Araucaria Carneades an display visually systems diagram employed argument collaboratively they and between reasons, premises, listed when than propositions, positions tionships collaboratively pro-con they howcertain to students examine may premises leading &Biezuner, Neuman, 2000). (Schwarz, certain conclusions school students ormaynotleadto 16 In another 2011). (Walton, study, secondary use can such as Araucaria be appliedfor of in chat positions Systems adopting pro-con working online pairs or of schemes, and on vivisection gender types arguments argumentation employed specific equalityeither from discussions for to capture their ownargument expert testimony, example, argument witness diagrams thatautomatically opinion, or employed analogy, practical example, popularopinion, computer diagrams verbal classifica& reasoning discussions(Salminen,Marttunen, constructed (i.e.,from goal to action), and indicated tion, sign(Walton, ofthesediagrams Reed,& Macagno, 2008). Laurinen, 2010). Analysis thesetwo different thatalthough Analysis of an early version of InterLoc, diagramsdid not thatcollegestudents found thestudent- AcademicTalk, in of differ terms formulating usingthis arguments, others' with challenged and moreofthestudents' toolmore included constructed directly engaged diagrams moreextended also the on theissuethandid thecomputer- positions; students generated knowledge prior in than In engaged an online study, analysisof argumentation did students diagrams. an earlier generated tool(McAlister, use without ofthis to students' forum in diagramsfrom before after Ravenscroft, changes of on in and of reading articles participation collaborative & Scanlon,2004).Research implementationthe fostered toolwithover350usersat fivedifferent that indicated thecollaboration chatdebates collegesites itas fostering and that students teachers as of recall elaboration arguments, evident found and further judged

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

285

et in Substantive collaborative debate condition. Students this condition added (McAlister al., chat argument morematerial was notdirectly that related theprito 2004). are most which that simsystems more appropri- mary Although ofthese arguments, suggests using graphs someresearch suggested ply represent has atefor to does students collegestudents, arguments notencourage In thatthey be used withsecondary can students. a to adoptandrecognize associated conflicting opinions teachers onlinediscus- with argument, an whereas the descriptive study, organized simply representing difaroundnarrative cases that ferent sionsforninthgraders moreportrayal group of arguments represents structured wicked or about consensus thanconflicting All represent poorly problems opinions. ofthispoints havesomeinvestment knowledge totheimportance defining which students and of for specific purposes usandfor which there alternative are solutions or tools (Schwarz ingmapping graphing tofoster representations & De Groot, also 2007).The students usedtheDigalo ofarguments. tool includes and Thisresearch theuseofdiagrams, on system that argument mapping synmaps, graphic chronous forums withand without floorcontrols to organizers, onlineargument and for systems scaffoldin the ing readingand writing arguments of the organize turn-taking, whichstudents request suggests floor add contributions. to ofthechanges in importance acquiredschemata identifying of for and Analysis of reasonwarrant A pre and postargumentative essaysfoundsignificant development claimrelationships. inopenness, defined decisiveness and key research has how improvement by remaining question todo with use thenumber perspectives of The researchers ofthese transfers across and adopted. diagrams disparate topics noted that reason theshift perspectives one in for was types texts. of related beingexposedto multiple to In perspectives. a related of of study theeffects Digalo on argument, and Limitations of of conditions in Strengths resulted analysis theeffects different of a Cognitive Perspective in differencesfloor on control seventh graders arguing of has insmall on school uniforms Application a cognitive perspective effectively groups theissueofwearing identified use ofspecific how or & indicated that strategies schemata (Schwarz Glassner, 2007).The results is associated with different ofeffectiveness in online discussions controlled turndegrees organizing through andwriting texts. Instructional and conversations in resulted the reading argumentative taking use ofnatural in or has ofmorerelevant claimsand arguments research uses ofspecific strategies schemata development in certain thanwas thecase with lackoffloor control more documented and ways which teaching argumentative in of formal conversations. strategies, particularly terms formulating rhetorical their theuse ofmaps or graphic specific goals shaping argumentative Although organizers research reading on Further, serve effectively to scaffold students' reading. argumentative may representarelated writing to texts to tions aspects arguments use ofargumentativetexts of of and argumentative points the in structures related improvto andgraphic notneces- valueofinstructiontext maps strategies, organizers may the enhance critical of issues ingargument writing, suggesting needfor integrasarily understandingcomplex tion reading/writing of instruction. et as Moreover, with technology (Scheuer al.,2010). any studies reading writing also of and have the for students using are Cognitive tool, purposes which mapsor whatHayes (2006) referred as complex to basedoncertain classroom activities provided graphic organizers that to orinstructions result differenceslearning. can in in frameworks, is,representations designed explore orsituations. delineated ways He five In a study use ofan argumentation of in complex processes diagram frameworks be applied research to issues: to 15students that might pairedonline arguments, and 16 -year-old of elements relations and within comwereassignedto aid memory key engagedin onlinedyadarguments modelofwriting, Toulmin's one oftwoconditions related howthey to used their plexsystems process (e.g., to a to & Baker, model), provide common language, (Lund,Molinari, 2007). argument diagrams Sjourn, facilitate and to in Students thegraphfor condition acquiring organizing knowledge, make debating simply and a referred theirown graphsto support to theirargu- empirical predictions, to constructresearch prothat We for study the of tohaving eachdyaddetermine areas gram. think a research ments, program up leading and of and ofagreement disagreement. thegraph rep- theteaching learning argumentative and In for reading benefit suchexplanatory from structures. chat in writing students might resenting debatecondition, engaged themostsignificant contribution this followed using diagram repthe of to Perhaps dyadarguments by resent arguments, their is of todetermining areas perspective theidentification specific leading up cognitive ofagreement disagreement. and in for Students thegraph skillsnecessary argumentation. Kuhn (2005) As for condition more were to "we con- posited, needtoknow what debating likely identify fairly precisely a cogniassociatedwiththedifferent tive skill ifwehopetoteach orcreate conditions is it the flicting opinions arguments thanwere in students thegraph representingfor development" 12).Without theoretical for its the and (p.
286 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

the work thanthosewritten empirical within cognitive perspective, literacy weremorepersuasively powerful researchers teachers and wouldnothave"roadmaps" bysuburban which attributed differshe to students, constituted class and racedifferfor "patterns, the and endpoints" are encesin habitus that by sequences, Anderson analyzed letters degrees also the for of valued elements intellectual (Kuhn, of life 2005, 196). ences. p. that to the is This orientation toward study what the of centeredness, is,thedegree which writer argumentaor classdifare a need- self-centeredaudience-centered, tive skills andhowthey offersmuch reflecting develop in and materials ferences discourses ed extension themyriad professional to of operating thetwodifferent In we that and socialcontexts. thenextsection, examine andpublic statements call for argupolicy teaching mentative andwriting a socialperspective. from andreasoning skills without reading specifythinking learning are and these skills howthey learned, how are, ingwhat toimprove instruction. to there of However, area number limitationstheap- Research on Argumentative as of One perspective. limitation, plication thecognitive and WritingWithin in researchersthe1980s Beach Reading articulated writing (R. by is thisperspective & Bridwell, 1984), that underrepre- a Social Perspective contexts the the sents socialand cultural constituting constitutes explorathe as Argument a socialpractice texts of and writing argumentative (Evensen, tionand advancement reading An ofknowledge: idea is put fails forth, 2002;Nystrand, 2006).The cognitive perspective and a is a dispute ensues, newhypothesisoffered, ofsocial, rhetori- then how toconsider students' knowledge an and consider oldprobscholars, students, others in social lemfrom new cal,and power operating a certain dynamics is a Argument also about perspective. offorthe or context influence quality effectiveness can as and clarity wellas persuasion, occurring discovery of socialconstructionper- in what mulating through arguments Bereiter Scardamalia and (2006)calleddesign identification audience sonaorethos, (Burke, mode, distinct belief gaining mode.Whereas discourse as from consti- in belief orvoicing certain of discourses, 1969), practices with modeis ultimately concerned accepting socialcontexts (Moje & Lewis,2007). orrejecting idea,discourse designmodeis conparticular tuting in an in of Forinstance, a replication a previous study cerned ideasinto with theories, inventions, developing of ofcollege students' comprehension processes argu- plans,and so forth, solutions to to designed formulate mentative texts(Haas & Flower, 1988),Haswelland problems. in is thekey criterion Whereas justifiability students an belief with found providing that - thedegree which (1999) to theocolleagues mode, promisingness were and ries, text which engaged have they argumentative with inventions, plans,and so forth somepotentiin of resulted stronger interested in issuein design comprehension the ality terms uptake is thepivotal of This find- mode.Much formal text thanwasthecase intheoriginal in is conducted belief education study. for of to ledtheresearchersargue theimportance so- mode (e.g., beliefs the for aboutcompeting ing arguments cialcontext in the belief (Haswell sakeofengaging arguments), argumentative practices shaping although way muchofthisresearch etal.,1999). from declaration authoritative employed is dealtwith Although mayrange for that controlled in experimental designs allowed analy- to critical world, However, thework design analysis. different factors modepredominates, theneedtouse discourse sis ofand generalizations to regarding given and solutions to (Calfee& address reading writing shaping argumentative problems leading tangible practical studies raises oroutcomes. this Chambliss, 2011), useofexperimental inthat articreate ofecological issues and ideasin speeches, they may validity articles, essays, Well-argued inconsistent thecomplex- position with rhetorical contexts ficial and to papers bring significance understanding in and involved reading writing. an issuefor purpose solving of the of ity socialcontexts problems. Argument of Another limitation muchcognitive ideasintoconprocessing and debatealso bring peopleand their on research thatithas focusedprimarily compre- tactwith is to one another makesenseofnewideasand or textsas opposedto theeffects experiences as hending producing collaborativelywellas in disagreement. in of or offraming argument terms dialogic collab- Putanother peoplecontinually aboutsports, the argue way, the orative interaction to to and travel routes work, other involving use oftexts achieve politics, aspects religion, in rhetorical context involv- ofdaily In business, socialaction an authentic life. over fees, wages, peopleargue for basedon audience and proposals conducting work job specificaand for ingactualconsequences writers the most is feedback. Perhaps significantthat cognitive tions.In law,people argueoverlegalinterpretations in for ofa doesnotaccount howdifferencesso- andtheconstitutionalitylaw.In academic research, perspective and in overhypotheses, result different notions valued scholars of ciocultural contexts theses, evidence. argue are other there many For DianeAnderson Of course, placesandinstitutions practices. example, argumentative and Within socialsettings sooccurs. written urbanstudents inwhich found theletters that (2008) arguing by for of there to theirprincipalregarding school improvements cialinstitutions, area variety socialpractices

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

287

in with rulesfor is often case in sports the talk. Yet,thesocialpractices ground engaging arguing, distinctive for the for ofargumentative successorfailure; instance, socialpractices and writing academic in setreading abouta nation's soccer team's chances win tings also aboutsocialrelationships scholars to are (i.e., arguing in bar theWorld scholars therest theworld), to of social Cup among patrons a sports arediffer- to each other, entfrom socialpractices arguing for aboutwhether institutions higher the academic education, (i.e., research), a particular is counts knowledge, as genotype associatedwitha particular andcultural ideologies what (e.g., in fish. what valued, is In what counts reason). both as informal phenotype zebra in Giventhisvariation contexts, a such barsandmore formal academic adopting social settings as sports viewof argumentative the socialpracticpractice readingand writing settings, understanding appropriate what been a primary therefore differs from has focus es for in an argument important, is because engaging ofmuchprevious research thecomponents an those on of whodo not follow appropriate the practice be may the structures and viewed outsiders become as and McCann,1989), text argument (e.g., marginalized. & a a shifts 2002;Yeh, stratagems Reznitskaya Anderson, (e.g., Adopting social practices perspective andthecognitive in involved arguing researcher's focusto examining howuses of 1998), processes analytic and learning argue(e.g., to Kuhn,1991, discourses, 2005).Much, language,texts, genres, persona/ethos, not on serve achieve to although all,ofthescholarship argumentative and imagesas toolsin socialcontexts and writing treated has as if certain rhetorical The socialpractices reading argumentation goals. perspecthere were relatively a consistent ofcognitive lin- tive set and an on tools adopts ecological perspective howthese skills processes define effective and that an construction contexts. of guistic argu- mediate unfolding, evolving in ment of there In their of rhetorical modelsbased regardless variation contexts. Although critique traditional hasbeenrecognition there be different of on invention, that and may ways arrangement, memory, delivstyle, in et Priorand colleagues(2007)positedtheneed to 1996; (Berrill, vanEemeren al., ery, engaging argument writ- add mediation and 2002),different ofteaching ways (i.e.,howdigital, argumentative genre, discourse text distribution how 2010;Ramage, Bean,& Johnson, 2007; practices ing(Andrews, (i.e., shape production), & and kinds are within across and certain Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, 1984), different of texts disseminated groups text and is argument schemes(Waltonet al., 2008),to date ornetworks), reception howtext (i.e., meaning there beenlittle has attention viewing to constructed writers audiences and within certain argumentative by and as that activities ecologies). Prior al., and For et reading writing a setofsocialpractices vary object-driven across within and socialinstitutions socialsettings arguments mediated and as socialaction refers thefact to consistent literacy with action cognition distributed time and are over and 2007;Street, that (Barton, practice or situated theories & Wenger, spaceand among and environments 1995) (Lave learning people,artifacts, also laminated multiple as frames fields or and,thus, 1991). As social andwrit- that in coexist anysituated In activity, act. practices, argumentative reading peopleare as or aboutwin- notonlysocialized(i.e.,brought alignment into with ingarenotviewed solely necessarily an with and Thatis, others) they as cultural resources also but ning argument warrants evidence. appropriate is and individuated their as historiargument notnecessarily aboutreasoning just particular appropriations rhetoric. as read- cally accumulate form particular to a individual. Rather, social practices, argumentative are socialrelationships and socialingandwriting aboutbuilding Through appropriation individuation, andconnections socialinstitutions to basedon adopt- ization also opensup a spacefor cultural for change, a cultural or Suchprac- personalization thesocial (Prior al, 2007).Given of et ingcertain ideologies discourses. in tices heldnotonly theminds a group people thisredefinition context, are of of of researchers examine then butarealso inthematerial and orga- howstudents learn transfer ofliteracy to uses structure, space, practices nization a particular of event Bloome al., acrossdifferent, competing et often events spacesto or (cf. literacy For about achievepositive and For 2005; 2010). example, Pennycook, arguments reception uptake. example, whether has a better soccerteamin theWorld whenlarge numbers Egyptians of for Spain argued theneed thanBrazilamong ata sports can in- for bar their headofstate resign, to weredrawing on Cup patrons they volve and but of previously and similar the claims, warrants, evidence, thepoint developed arguments by theargument notsimply winning in theen- Tunisianpeople,arguments in is but mediated social netby and that the tools massdistributionthese of gagement excitement comesfrom solidar- working for arguments. ofrecognizing soccer teams. This raisesthequestion to howthesemediated as soity great atan academic conferenceinsomeways cialpractices is were inways that tocultural led Arguing acquired nodifferent: structuring The ofturn-taking argu- change inthe across different spaces. mentation more is formal folItis important note to that (e.g., paperpresentation approaching argumentalowed discussants questions), theemphasis tive and and andwriting socialpractices not deny as is to by reading on convincing warrants cannot taken granted, be for as theroleofcognitive linguistic and involved processes
288 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

inargumentation. it Rather, is to ask,Whenpeoplesay and thattheyare engagedin argumentative reading Howarethey dowhat are writing, is itthat they doing? How aretheir When?Where? it? Who is involved? ing and related other to events the within event an actions in is the socialinstitutionwhich event embedded? Also, ofsocial a aredoing recurrent howis what pattern they as in We interactionsuchsettings? viewsuchquestions in but own notonly their right alsotostudies important beand and ofcognitive linguistic processes strategies, and such contextualize cognitive causethese questions for be and studies cannot taken granted. linguistic

in in usesofstrategies argumentative writing a role-play that Beachand Anson(1988)argued Richard activity, formuwere to schoolstudents more likely simply high to reference audiences, withlittle latetheir positions to their whereas students were, prior stating pocollege traits toreference more toinitially sitions, attempt likely to their audience gain sharedwith or status that they identification. to referred as audience what Burke (1969) also meansthat awareofaudience perspectives Being counterto are students more potential likely consider In audiences. a that couldbe voiced their by arguments uses writers' of and ofnovices' expert study descriptive were students structures, secondary complex argument as claimsorreservato more arguments likely employ Theoretical Perspectives Shaping were writers more whereas adultorexpert tions, likely the Social Perspective on Research rebuttals wellas as as to employ arguments countered on ArgumentativeReading and Writing conof an warrants reflecting awareness therhetorical of the Overthepast 30 years, limitations a cognitive text 1998). (Crammond, to on researchers focus socialand led often perspective many cogunderlying stage Developmental models research nitive ofcontexts, cultural literacy shaping often aspects research students' on writing argumentative in 2006)and contemporary developments assumethat inare (Nystrand, students developmentally younger et vanEemeren al, 1996; (Berrill, theory argumentation audience ofconsidering ignoring perspectives, capable read- variations contexts serve foster of and Walton, 1996; 1998), studies argumentative audistudents' to in that & 1995; (Chambliss, Nystrand Graff, enceawareness. to ingand writing serves audiences definable Having of Analysis the create senseofcontext fosters 2001)werecertainly ofthisshift. part of rehearsal inner that a drawson several as use ofargument socialpractices As speecharguments. Ward (2009)noted,"audience social newrhetoric, theoretical different perspectives: which whichprovides motivation, context, provides and analysis, visualrhetoric. stimulates dialogic/discourse genre, destimulates which inner writing speech, in these turn. We consider contextualization"69). motivates which (p. velopment, mesof Forexample, writing graders' analysis first New Rhetoric to famTheory messagejournal,writing sages in a family found to whoresponded their and Audience Awareness messages, ilymembers wereable,withteacher the need to thatthestudents prompting, classicalrhetoric emphasized Although needs (Wollman-Bonilla, their audiences' of of audiences thevalidity one's to consider or winover convince on thevalueofinstruction audience a claimsbyemploying rangeofrhetorical 2001), suggesting strategies, versus Internet offourth awareness. new rhetoric graders' Analysis (Bazerman,1994;Booth,1963;Burke, that audiences found explicit for different with socialrelationships au- print on writers' writing 1969)focuses for textualfeatures on For instruction uses of different beliefs attitudes. or constituted shared diences by audience oftextsenhancedstudents' to gain different how described writers Burke types attempt example, are or claims cause awareness with identification their audience's their 2007).Students also (Karchmer-Klein, audiencewhenaskedto their to morelikely consider or shared attitudes, experibeliefs, referencing through audience. adopta reading-as-the-reader with encesto builda socialrelationship that (Holliway, perspective of an and 2004).Finally, experimental intended to their writers define study 10-year-olds Doingso requires with their thatsharing and actualaudiences' perspectives each other attitudes, experiences, found beliefs, for to of for ingroups three prepare argumentative that writing ally something canbe development challenging that socialperspective-takingisesthem students. acquire helped younger characteristics audience for writ- sential considering on of One limitation research argumentative (Glat, is the within cognitive perspective that 2003). ingconducted has in Research or for in often wrote unknown students thesestudies grounded thenewrhetoric highof the had so audiences that perspective-taking they no understand- lighted importance students' anonymous and voicein in their oflanguage use or audiences' actualbeliefs, oftheir attitudes, ex- involved varying ing in audiences differfor In to gain the audiences'identification. a formulating arguments different periences enstudents To of9th-grade, sixth-grade first-year college, entcontexts. helpbilingual 12th-grade, comparison own their students in differences gageinaudience students' and graduate compared analysis, developmental in variations theuse adult translators' of and audiences theapplication relevant variations against understanding
289

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

oflanguageand voicein translating acrossdifferent Social Genre Theory audiences & Orellana, Pacheco, Carbone, Use ofargument socialpractice also mediated (Martinez, as is by Students identified then certain issuesthat con- students' 2008). and use ofsocialgenres, is, that knowledge cerned identified their and them, audiences, thenre- socialactivity constituted genre as (Bazerman, systems in hearsed variations voicegivendifferences these 1994; in that mediate in Russell, 2009, 2010) participation in for letters actual socialworlds providing to audiences, preparation writing certain by prototypical of ways audiences. After students drafts, andbeing, with as completing adopted acting spacesconstituting argument theroles their of intended audiences provided and socialpractice. Socialgenres therefore a key in role peer play in feedback terms thequality arguments ways fostering of of and transfer acrossmultiple contexts a form as of toimprove arguments, example, the for theuse polycontextuality through 2009). (Engestrm, ofvoice. of Genres argumentative also to writing serve orgaof the students'letters indicatedthat nizeandstandardize basedon shared Analysis writing practices thestudents of wereableto shift their ofvoicerela- knowledge genreconventions use to designed achieve in tiveto differences audience. example, writ- certain For in uptake.For example, Sheehy(2003) studied school students wrote composite who a letter to one Christina, middle ingto schooladministrators, student, school boardtoargue their school. if-then conditional to against closing employed syntax adopta voice their two forces work: at orethosassociated with causalclaims She examined competing centripmaking general forces standardization of versus centrifuabout schoolsystem, wellas a senseofadminis- etal, the as unifying to basedon competing, trators' concerns test with scores: galchallenges standardization diverse The inforces perspectives. standardization I'msure our if school more for got money school supplies, volved teacher's the direct instructionformalist of modstudents concentrate and better scores. els and would more get test and uses of genreconventions, thestudents' Ifthe District schools money supplies, those more and gave models conventions pulltogether and to competthe students try stay school pay would to in and attention ideas text. thesame At ing,alternative intoa cohesive and better scores. test etal., (Martinez 2008, 427) get p. students were a range alternative of time, entertaining the the perspectives, including idea that schoolboard In contrast, addressingclassmate, when a Christina ad- would their because as students, simply ignore plea, voiceassociated with own her opteda more personal had in they little agency thecommunity. behavior: "WhenI don't inlunch nutrieat or personal To bolster their rhetorical the reagency, students tion'causethefood's I don't mywork my casttheir do and nasty, informal talkintomore oral forexploratory, homework" 427).Shealsoaddressed classmates malwritten her (p. with proseconsistent written speech genre ina more informal manner: "Don't think school conventions. thestudents our you As the enworked, teacher needstochange becauseit'sugly poor?" 428). and (p. them entertain to diverse alternative, couraged perspecTaken a whole, as these studies in grounded thenew tives: centrifugal leading revision, wellas the force to as rhetoric evidence thedegree which offer that to students genre toolsleading students organize focus the to and consider their audience influences their mo- their ideasfor their final seriously as consistent their with speech tivation formulate to effective of and needs. (Miller& perceptions boardmembers' arguments knowledge 2007;Sheehy, 2003;Ward,2009).Students The students' collaborative formulation their of Charney, argualso be more motivated write peers, to for ment notclose their to schoolwas mediated their may particby thosein other thanfor their In shared teacher. of of Further classes, ularly knowledge socialgenres argument. a comparative ofIsraeli seventh writ- research needsto examine howknowledge specific of analysis graders their teachers versus for the genre functions organize to collaborative ingfor writing U.S. peers, argumentative for wassuperior that writing their writing to of basedon shared for of writing peers perceptions socialpractices. in teachers terms more of sentences clearly connecting around mainidea(Cohen& Riel,1989). a Students may Dialogic/Discourse Analysis Theory alsobe more motivated when can their role Another they define theoretical of perspective analysis informing orethosinterms thedemands having change argument socialpractices of of to as is dialogic related theory their audiences' status when todouble-voicing quo beliefs, particularly different discourses worldviews or as thestudents engaged collective in are socialrelationships audiences with activity (Spartz, a toolfor building Interviews college with students wereem- (Bakhtin, who 2010). audience identification 1981, 1986). Gaining written tofoster as partofa for one'sposition causeinvolves ability doubleor the to ploying arguments change service course revealed thestudents that were voice in ordiscourses ways speak those that to learning language motivated construct activist to an civicidentity/ethos audiences. themostwell-known Perhaps exampleof their commitment making to via double-voicing MartinLuther is given change (Crisco, argumentation call socialjustice his "I Havea Dream" in 2009). KingJr.'s for
290 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

in For elements theU.S. and immigration. example, herethnographic of speechusingdreammetaphors, can in references. Student adopt analysis arguments a working-class Lindquist and of bar, Constitution, biblical stances student doctoral that double-voicing language (2002)reported as an academic, through argumentative defined whoworked thebar,certain orwhat KarenBrooks discourses in class-based (2011) parodies through texts. ofschooling culture of and as thereaccentingdigital popular and shapedcustomers' herownassumpas a socialpractice tions Uses ofdialogic within sothis of aboutthenature argumentation double-voicing with audi- cialcontext. instance, working-class intertextual for customers her For social, relationships building the framed Bloomeet al, 2009)suggest ences(Bakhtin, of the their 1981; by arguments referencing realworld from students ofshifting in to and actions experiences opposition what focusing everyday away importance to their on to primarily formulating ownclaims attending they academic, speculaperceived be hertheoretic, commit- tive, claims wellas garnering as totheir As with associated what-if opponents' schooling. a positions of result, attempts gainheraudience's thevalidity their ments from identification to her regarding opponents someresearchers claims.Although students' (Felton, for what-if the often failed her given audiarguments in & 2004;Kuhn& Crowell, press; ence'sadherence real-world 2004;Felton Herko, discourses. to & 2008;Kuhn & Kuhn,Goh, Iordanou, Shaenfield, and howstudents have Researchers also examined research us- teachers frame intervention their do Udell, 2003) not on contexts drawing or rhetorical construct by successes consistent their theory, rather and ingBakhtinian discourses, genres. prior double-voicing language, to in adolescents attending To to efforts support with early how described Lunsford this (2002) analyze process, claimsand premises an opponent's engaging students instructors a collegesummer through in and writing For inactive double-voicing. example, course high suggest dialogue and schoolstudents for adopted representin dialoguearguments ed theToulmin whenUth graders engaging as modelofargument well (1958/2003) use instructions were through ofa graph as howtheinstructors students explicit given and writing negotiated own of the toidentify different aspects their andothers' taskswitheach other. arin Students theclass wrote to to were more the claims, students likely attend their gumentative of elements the thefive employing essays & claims(Felton Herko, 2004). opponents' Toulminmodel:claims,reasons, warrants, evidence, mediate constructhe how In defining discourses and Students teachand acknowledgments/responses. a events of or tion grounding classroom shaping ers were literacy the and negotiating contesting continually adolescent writer, inher Kari, argumentative Norwegian in ofToulmin's terms their discussions, key a of meanings Evensen about music, (2002) posited theory writing of how for by example, considering themeaning claims claims in here-and-now double operate is related the dialogue, which a for of to concept point organizingpaper builds that of as theforegroundtheevent intertextually also Students research for orsolution identifying goals. in or onprior Thus,Kariwaswriting dialogues voices. the for on of, example, conceptions previous relation- drew their constituted her context a classroom by positive one'stopicas opposedto whowas idea ofpointas announcing audience as her shipwith teacher a supportive of as serving point defining inthecourse a series points At folk 's familiar thetopicofKari writing, music. with do as toorganize points arguments, wellas theideathat within the she thesametime, however, wasalsowriting needtobe contestable. as they than more topics, identify norms consticontext institutionalized of background that revealed theinstrucLunsford(2002)analysis 's literate culture" 397) as wellas (p. "Norwegian tuting as modelto students an theToulminian tors presented thatpreferred -hopto culture herpeeradolescent hip ofwriting ofa dynamic, system evolving part a integral Kariwith thus Doubledialogue folk music. provided the In identifi- instruction. thissystem, modelbecamealigned of the to means understand challenge gaining authoritative texts, figby music. gainherpeers' withand mediated certain To on her with stance folk cation vocabulary writing by thevalueofa ures,and readers a specialized of identificationherposition regarding The as known contestability. analysis on she of certain music, drew prior language, and a criterion type folk and also showedthatthesealignments expectations at that and discourses, genres "'ring thebackofoursoas conflicted participants mappedone cialminds'(Evensen, 2001a)as voicesand intertextual occasionally For ontoanother. of reification Toulmin's terms shared as key allusions" 404)serving background expe(p. as notions to what had students conflicting a her with riences foreground claims, social example, peersthat on to them draw inquiry/ claims, of constituted her thatrepresents rhetorical requiring knowledge practice accordto examinetheir heuristic with interactions those writing practices peers. prior of localtothesocialcontext theclass. to meanings stu- ing or To engagein double-voicing reaccenting, havediffistudents assumedthat it dentsmustalso be awareof tensionsbetweenand Although is often stuthat found Lunsford that culty or within warrants, discourses, genres determining competing languages, claimsand as for the undermine potential audience identification, dentshad moredifficulty distinguishing in on reflected arguments issuesofabortion, rights, data,inthat gay
A Readingand Writing: Reviewof Research Argumentative Teachingand Learning 291

this students also interaction, Through reciprocal The Use of Student-Teacher Reciprocal, learn construct to orroles toestablish persona designed ethosto provide Dialogic Interactions audiences with senseofcredibility a Centralto a social practicesperspective the as- andbelievability is Students' to 1986). (Nystrand, ability that students construct andethos on having clear a sumption acquire argumentative literacy persona depends active in inter- senseoftheir and valpractices beliefs, through participation dialogic goals,norms, communal actions. theories argument socialpractice ues operating a certain of as in rhetorical context domain. or Dialogic the of collaborative interac- Adopting these and themposit valueoftransfer oral, beliefs, goals,norms, values over time foster to ofcompet- selves motivates student assumethat the tions, to or unfolding voicing persona on role For ing,rivalperspectives an issue,to argumentative rolebased on emulating modelsor mentors. Within socialpractices a transfer example, student a believes theschoolis failing that to writing. perspective, occurswhen quality theseoralstudent-teacher serve the of food in cafeteenough healthy options theschool andstudent-peer interactions students' devel- ria, the values fostering of a healthy support presupposing larger ofvoice, and The then formulates a goalofchangstances, discourses, opment genres, sense lifestyle. student ofaudience. attitudes the ingtheschooladministration's regarding Lunsfors has to the that have (2002)research pointed theim- status byrecognizing norm students quo of of student- lesspower than them portance thesocialpractice supportive administrators, requiring toadopt teacherand student-peer in interactions fostering anethos a knowledgeable of student committed makto and Basedonresponses ingchange. argumentative reading writing. totheir students learn vary to their These perceptionsare constructedover time writing, elementary use oflanguage as for official through interaction between students register a toolfor writing dialogic engaged versus unofficial audiences(Dyson,2008).Students in collaborative to problem solving designed address learnto adoptmoreformal, resonant voices(Elbow, certainissues (van Eemeren& Grootendorst, 2004; voices(Ivani,1998)through in- Walton, of 2000) or discoursal 1998, 2007).One limitation thetraditional teractions teacher-modeled ofthesevoices one-shot with uses is is persuasive essayassignment thatthere buildonrather denigrate than informal little ofarguments counterand (Lee,2007)that ongoing development voices encourage and students voicebeliefs to suchessays;students contrary arguments surrounding writing tothose intexts bytheteacher or haveno reason explore to because espoused (Gorzelsky, counterarguments, often notreceive do 2009). from they counterarguments the Forexample, hisanalysis twostudents' in of teacher therefore, noreason doing This have for so. and, argumentative in a Norwegian Smidt rhetorical context school, contrasts engaging with in writing (2002) limiting
292 ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

found thesupportive that teacher's feedback thestuto dents onlyserved foster their not to the to willingness in but engage effective argument alsoreflected presupaboutimplied readers within traditions the positions ofwriting Norwegian in schoolsand theinstitutional norms within school. the This includes analoperating Studies suchas Lunsfors that a (2002) reflectsocial of or in ysisofthetypes assignments genres operating raise practice perspective significant questions regardschool as norms that Norwegian writing "sociocultural to and ingattempts identify assessuses ofToulmin's thestudents' teachers' and ofwhat interpretation claim-reason-warrant based on standard- guide strategies is expected a schoolcomposition more of and specificriteria rubrics, theseefforts or as fail ized,objective counts a 'personal as callywhat essay'as opposedto a to capture to meanings specific thecontext. Analysis analysis'" 422). (p. ofthesecontested, that 'pragmatic negotiated meanings suggests Smidt (2002) analyzedthe development two of classroom contexts the challenge ideaoftop-down ap- students a over two-year interms their of period adopof suchas Toulmin's plications modelsofargument tionofdiscourse rolesand positionings (Ivani,1998) werecontinually model,whoseconcepts beingrede- as theyvariedtheirstancesin adoptingtheirroles finedand contested the of given particulars a classdifference audiences rhetorical in and contexts. room context. Given centrality transfer social given the of of He found that students the themselves acpositioned across different Lunsfors contexts, practices analysis to of in for cording thesocialpractices writing school a that are suggests students continually recontextualizing a that from in teacher,positioning differed writing nonuses ofargumentative for literacy practices engaging schoolcontexts. students' The teacher reciprocated by different audiences different in contexts social through certain basedon hisperceptions of adopting positions as receive feedback from their audiences practice they theindividual students thenorms and inthe operating & 1998; Gamoran, Carbonaro, (Ivani, Nystrand, 2001). school context.

daims heavily are co-constructed that equation and the between claim thesis a and statement be negotiated. must ... instead isolating of warrants theproblem, analysis as this that be to how suggests itwould better understand all of these elements continually are redefined, 161-162) (pp.

collaborative et in A in or (R. reasoning Anderson al.,2001)that false Cl, then is alsotrue false C2. As a third involves whatNussbuamand Schraw(2007)defined example, appealtoexpert the is opinion argumentthat, as argument-counterargument in that is an expert a subject related claimA to integration through given that A the of claimA is trueorfalse, then weighing merits competing positions, refuting and that asserts or and be to or as false unsupported, moving toward may taken be true false. arguments Thesevarious schemes be used can somerecommended or synthesis solution. Examining argumentative to on as a dialogicinteraction that in theclassroom helpfocusanalysis particular recognizes arguments in most occur through representing arguments disagreementsevery- typesofarguments arguments through abouteach ofthe & As (Felton Kuhn,2001). previously and thenposingcritical questions dayconversation with certain associated a researchers noted, typesofarguments. adopting collaborative premises although the opinionschemeis reasoning approach(e.g.,Jadallahet al., 2011)may Forexample, appeal to expert that as is a their basedon thepremises is credible an expert, frame their studies within cognitive perspective, in related A and actually to asserted also attention socialandlinguistic to processes provides an expert thefield is with in contexts fos- A, is a reliable into source, consistent other experts, insights howinteractionsclassroom A andis basing on evidence et ter as socialpractice. (Walton al.,2008). argument of have also foundthatknowledge Researchers the for to 2007), rules par(1998, According Walton interactions argumentative for in theseinteractions according six these to purposes dialogic vary ticipating and at with different ofdialogue: age. persuasion thegoalof has itsorigins an early Ehrlich Blum-Kulka types in interan with or peer analyzed preschoolers' talk natural inquiry thegoalof (2010) resolving clarifying issue, that students to with the actions demonstrate very ordisproving a hypothesis, may young negotiation proving examine narrative of with employ information a events, reports playground seeking goalofachievingsettlement, instructions howtoplaya on with word deliberation thegoal ofexchanging definitions, information, provide to or an different ofaction, and game, discuss issuefrom the thegoalofdetermining bestcourse perspectives is construct as whena narrative employed reasons a for eristic thegoalofrevealing with arguments, underlying An of these conflict. argumay tomakea claim. analysis twopreschoolers' types Although different ofdialogue in Pokmon for ments trading bargaining and for of the involve someform argumentation, purposes stickers, that refusal one to givea sticker revealed to by vary goals. arguments according different Forexam- instance, in resulted theuse ofarguments an in to involving ple,engaging a deliberation address issuemay to theother to as to without attempts judge appeals third-party involve participants wellas addressing any brainstorming in dein eachother thethird whereas thevalidity competing of claims, involving person, strategies engaging the socialrelationships ethos. and a to prove fining involves proponent Through use attempting persuasion that ofpeertalk, with thevalidity a claim of respondents challenging validity. moreorlessexplicchildren need to internationally display ForWalton(1998, 2007),analyzing argumentative their or As theybecome itly viewpoints positions. a result, a specific identifyingproponent's dialogueinvolves foremost moreequippedwith meansto argueand think the in reacts thosemoves to moves and howa respondent within their own social and cultural peermilieuand probfrom which bothareseeking certain commitments the contexts well.(Ehrlich Blum-Kulka, as & 2010, ablyin other the other basedon accepting premises underlying pop. 226) are These commitments defined partners' as sitions. of as of in differences dialogic To examine explicit premises opvoicing acceptance these developmental beliefs thatmaynotbe explicitly argument on basedon Walton's 2007)focus how posed to partners' (1998, a stated. Once either Feltonand Kuhn (2001)comacceptsthesepremises, goalsdrivearguments, partner formulateclaimwith goalof paredseventh eighth a the can and young adults' and proponent then graders' the commit agreeing that to to in to claim, arguments dyadsovera periodoffive sixweeks. having respondent the in ortheproponent challenge premises can of underly- Basedon coding thegoalsadopted thedialogues, claims(Felton Kuhn, theresearchers & that middleschoolstudents the alternative found therespondent's ing in their wereless strategic formulating goals in the 2001). these accord- dialoguesthanweretheyoung adultswhoemployed Itis alsothecasethat exchanges vary school schemes In comparison themiddle to (Walton counterarguments. prototypical argument ingtocertain to werealso twiceas likely theargument from the adults et al.,2008),for students, young positive example, inwhich proponent theprem- engagein morerebuttals definetheir and a partners' consequences, adopts those claims. will claims a manner served weaken in that to if then isethat A is adopted, consequences positive school students that and occurand henceA shouldbe adopted.As a second Felton Kuhnnoted themiddle between the maynothavea clearsenseofthedifferences the from is analogy that, given example, argument versus a case Cl is similar C2, and A is trueor thegoal ofunderminingpartner's to that argument premise

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

293

thegoalofundermining partner's the claimby pro-con on discussion forum. Students specific arguments a Ning clarificationandcritiquing The research- double-voiced of it. discoursesof school administration, seeking ersalsonoted agreeing others' with that as the adolescent and resistance, so forth positions op- counseling, law, to simply was an equally to construct their stances(Beach & Doerrposed disagreeing important personas' for one'spositions Stevens, press).Atthecompletion therole-play, in of argumentative strategy enhancing andgaining audience identification. thestudents outoftheir roles drew maand on stepped Another oftheapplication dialogic of theo- terial from interaction compose the to example position papers. is wereengagedin thisproject, because ry represented theideaofrival by hypothesis thinking The students the of knew they that were actualarguments through active exchange claimsand challenges they developing tothoseclaims(Flower, & Higgins, One topresent theschooladministrationchange to to their 2000). Long, forengagingin rivalhypothesis school's Whenthestudents were ableto conprimary purpose policies. is the of the tochange policies, the unblock thinking to allowfor opensharing competing vince administration on can certain and teachers accesstoYouTube, perspectives an issueso thatdifferent parties websites, allow work to to thestudents their work having as sometancollaboratively together developsolutions perceived those issues. Flower citedan example howri- gibleoutcome, exampleofan authentic of an rhetorical (2008) valhypothesis or as This the classroom conthinking, rivaling, theparticipating context. suggests needtocreate adolescents namedit,wasused to address attempt texts an driven transfer argument online of in rehearsal by to a on to contexts tangible with bythePittsburgh police impose curfew a neigh- contexts actual consequences. borhood theassumption a curfew that woulddeStudies online of interaction questions raise given digital ter crime. challenge proposed To the a of regarding advantages employing curfew,group the of theseonline the with collaborative young peoplefrom neighborhood thesupport toolsto foster argument. Comparisons ofa community center a of communication literacy developed pamphlet ofthequality computer-mediated reasons the wouldnotdeter versus face-to-face havegenerated mixed formulating why curfew arguments crime. Distribution thepamphlet theneighbors results. of to One study found thatalthough quality the of and policeled to a discussion theissueamongthe arguments higher face-to-face of was for durarguments and the ingtheexchanges, there no difference students' was in young people, neighbors, police. Subsequently, the a policedropped plantoimpose curfew. & Doherty, subsequent (Joiner, Jones, arguments 2008). ForFlower(2008), keyaspectoftheyoung a An analysis 12-year-olds' ofargumentative of use peowastheir senseofagency associated with strategies online, in ple'ssuccess chat discussions synchronous room their to consider neighbors' over the time found students that willingness seriously in shifted their to ability andpolice's claims theneedfor curfew that for a so the frame & Beaumont, In the arguments 2003). (Morgan adolescents couldthen provide thoughtful counterargu- beginning, ments. Flower As students this noted, acquire dialogic the students tofocus either failed on (to purpose persuade to others' acts agency through collectively responding thereader acceptthewriter's to position)or audience (the in and voices, terms their of to "gopublic, willingness This was writing particular people you need to convince). toengage a dialogue listens, in that and speaks, expects that was coming from nowhere no and (from felt conviction) a response which to are to they prepared respond" (p. out goingnowhere (reaching to no readers), 150) (p. 205). The students thenparticipated chatroomdialogic in Fostering Dialogic Interaction related theissueofsingle-sex to classrooms. argument in Online Contexts The teachers modeled usesofargumentative the strateAn important factor creating in review of onlineargumentativegiesandhadstudents transcriptstheexchangcontexts thedegree which is room useofthese for to students For their es inthechat perceive strategies. a later onlineinteractions shaping as actualchangein status chatsessionon theissueofthenature thepunishof thatstudents as to shouldbe givenfor wearing for not quo practices, opposed simply arguing thesake ments ofarguing. oneofthecoauthor's In the focused their attention uniform, teacher studies, school theschool high students in alternative on on adopting and comparticipated an online role-play perspectives making activity a socialnetworking for extended site an to of period time promises movestudents awayfrom adopting rigid, Given their concern preconfigured This study to Stevens, (R. Beach& Doerr2009). positions. points teachers' aboutwhat to alternative and they perceived be theschool'sarbitrary rolein modeling perspectives theneed on to others' in voices students' written chats. websites, wanted propose toincorporate policies blocking they to of students' onlinecollabchanges those policies. Analysis 24 secondary The students com- orative written chatdebatesfoundthatthestudents adopted roles representing theirschool administra- learned use thecollaborative to chatsto formulate arpetingstanceson whether torsshould change these policies and formulated guments, thequality thearguments of varied although
294 Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

& work conducted within ethnoan (Laurinen Marttunen, 2007).In their practices, considerably especially chatdebatein 12pairs,students assumedtherolesof graphic tradition assumesliteracy, that social space, as this for andidentity socialpractices. and to Although issuehas arguments protagonist antagonist formulate the of that consider notion identity theuse of many and against eachother's components, positions, fostering in an who is making argument, The and refutation counterarguments. use ofcollab- is essential defining for in of orative actswere speech analyzed terms theuse of to whom, whatpurposes,and on whatoccasion. concerns over orrequests clarifications, for answers ques- Leanderand McKim (2003)considered to questions in occurs offline interactionwell as collaborative identity which tions responses issues, or to play, maintaining is or others' discussion, extending summarizing thoughts, as onlinespaces.The difference thatonlinespace ofanonymity, some noncollaborativeprovides whereas andgiving offering feedback, varying degrees positive toparticipants. researchers How conceive of in others' protection of speechactswere analyzed terms ignoring in their therole identity online of unconnectideastofocus one'sownideasormaking on shapes argumentation of claimsregarding issuesofaufrom the warranting empirical students benefited ed comments. Although in and that to thenticity thesocialrelations develop online collaboration, oneofthe12pairswasperceived only aboutthe havebeenskeptical contexts. Somescholars whereas be employing many sophisticated arguments, use ofidentity inInternet (Harrington ofopinions lim- authenticity that involved ofthedebates play expression havestated that there whereas others & Bielby, of 1995), ited quality arguments. the identities between onlineand offline in socialpractice onlinearguments is a consistency One essential In online of case,those us whostudy in rhe- (Correll, 1995). any ethos a virtual, a believable involves constructing must that connective ethnograsuchas SecondLife(Jamaludin, torical Chee, argumentation realize context, of & stage or & Ho, 2009), QuestAtlantis, SimCity, Our phy(Leander McKim,2003)is in a nascent Whyville, described persuasive development. as orwhat Courts, Bogost(2007) of suchas World Warcraft, EverQuest, Lineage games, involve orCivilization which III, II, formulating argu- Use of Visual Rhetoric as an Argumentative au- Social Practice inhabitants virtual for virtual ments issues on facing of constructionethos We of diences. Analysis twostudents' soto visualrhetoric be an argumentative perceive in onlinediscussions found thathowthesestudents cial practice uses ofdigital mediated multimodal by in factor peers' was were per- video,image,and musiccultural by perceived peers a major tools,for example, These theuse ofhip-hop rapto frame ethos(Pickering, of 2009). ceptions thestudents' or political arguments relates the that to of resonances perceptions ethosin onlinecontexts havebothlocalandglobal (Pennycook, socialpresence toestablish Anderson, 2010). (Rourke, these usesofimhave Researchers alsoexamined ability & 1999; Swan,2002)ortelepresence agesorvideosas visual, Garrison, Archer, with multimodal rhetoric, the audience images videosacting argumentative practo engage & Skalski, as social 2010)designed and (Bracken identification. tices (Handa, 2004;Hill & Helmers, 2004;Wysocki, with Johnson-Eilola, & Sire, can interact The degree whichaudiences to alsoseetheviz.webSeife, 2004; into online material be transported or "be"in a vir- site[viz.cwrl.utexas.edu/], is maintained the or which by socialpresence telepresence DigitalWriting Research or tualworld enhance can of Lab attheUniversity and in ways can that be used for the that purposes. Texas).This research argumentative challenged assumption aboutYouTube images nonverbal Forexample, comments are of used as entities incapable being participants' and Wallin (2009) for whatJackson that postings represent supportpurposes, is,toprovide argumentative rhetoric as defined a back-and-forth Blair(2004)noted that for involving public, ivereasons a claim. although interactions between these that dialectic in do ads acts postings frame many aresimply ofpersuasion, that they a as rather thansimply prod- not for a reasons purchasingcertain argumentationa process product proffer any of comment uct.The researchers' documendo post- and therefore notconstitute analysis 35,000 arguments, a videoportraying the are to policetasing taries designed formulate ingsabouta YouTube arguments through a that66%of framing reasons societal student in waysthat of for college protestingspeechfound problems a involved a claimwith sup- havestrong thepostings resonance audiences, with emotional formulating recoghalfofthepostings wereresponding nizing visual can that rhetoric alsobe one-dimensional, reason, porting and to other and of one-sided, previous arguments, 40% ofthepostings vague, ambiguous, incapable matcha with constructive of and others, ingthecomplexity abstraction language. represented disagreements and to also reflection what of of Jackson Wallinperceived be Analysis theuse ofvisualrhetoric involves in or of issuesoftransfer terms recontextualizing,reonline, productive, public arguments. and redesigning, uses of printliteracies raise Studiesofonlineargumentation significant mediating & and literacies uses research the social through ofdigital visual issuesfor (Bezemer regarding waysin which In creating videosand storytelling interactions foster substantive Kress, 2008). digital argumentative literacy

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

295

learn assessthepotential context to to address students mediated students' uses oflanguage, disissues, by oftheir uses ofimages, socialgenres, visualrhetoric, shaped and rhetorical mu- courses, uses sounds, uptake in to basedontheir aboutaudi- by thestudents' sic,andediting assumptions engagement issues ofconcern for as and culture ofthe themand writing actualaudiences, opposedto ences'semiotic popular knowledge on issuesfor or audiand of sounds, music, editing writing assigned assigned teacher meanings theseimages, ences. Researchers then can students' to & 2009;Dubisar Palmeri, identify (Bruce, 2010). ability socialpractices associated with the In proposing needto integrate the traditional particular print employ of literacies parallel andnewdigital visual and as perspective-taking, audigaining pedago- developmentethos, different discourses Leander from double-voicing (2009) gy, proposed shifting a traditional enceidentification, usesofvisualrhetoric, so forth and focus the"products composition" con- and stances, on of to (Prior essayist to rhetorical demands sider "how certain meta-level anddimensions etal.,2007)relative theparticular processes in local ofcomposition powerful have acrossmedia" operating particular, events. purchase mostimportant, thesepractices In analyzing college his students' ofdigiuse Perhaps capture (p. 160). ownconstructions theevent opposed of as talvideo convey to their ideasorclaims the students' big through to to of useoflanguage video, and Leander students had define to students' ability conform thedictates an asevent an experimental in Studies within connections between use ofcertain the camera design. angles signed havesuggested to transfer stuin orvisual transitions iMovieediting features the thisperspective and ways dents'uses of social practices oral discussions in or useoftransitionsstrategiestheir or in as writing rhetorito construction rhetorical of for examevents, In cal moves. making videodocumentaries aboutthe reading of in Harlem, effects gentrification of students were con- ple,howthestudents' acquisition perspective-taking to in their audiences' and related alternative arguments a discussion may sistently considering knowledge transfer perspective-takingformulating to in written beliefs abouttheissueofgentrificationconducting in on then certain and their arguments. Focusing thisconstruction process interviews, a selecting images, editing teachers strategies creating with for envideos (Kinloch,2010).Othertheorists have drawn provides equally rhetorical in events their classrooms. own on theconcept kairos referring tensions of as to and gaging This focus thelocalevent theunit analysis on as of between writer context the and document struggles in can also be a limitation terms issuesofrelationof thatchallenge selection -relevant, the of appropriate the the given lack multimodal material specific for rhetorical contexts shipsbetween local and theglobal, offocuson "various and multiple alliances, hybrids, & Michel, Ridolfo, (Sheridan, 2009). and agencies thatsimultaneously occupyacts The increased ofvisualrhetoric students' agents in use ofreading writing. and is Agency indeedaliveandwell multimodal raisestheissueof argumentative writing and but their multimodal when is often it the inreading writing itis nota soloperformance" assessing writing & 2002, 347).The further (Brandt Clinton, p. challenge in casethat criteria employed evaluating argumentative on local is students, is largely based. Forexample, collab- infocusing theauthentic event that in print writing in as reflected hip-hop, double-voicing are globalized multimodal online texts, oratively constructing judging and discourses that"havegoneoutwellbeyond theeffective constructionethos of assumes interms texts less boundaries might have that once generofparticular individual oflanguage, more uses in thecommunity and atedand contained them"(Moss, 2011, 373).All of p. terms shared ofdesign, of use andimageseleclayout, thissuggests needtoshift focus debate the the of about tion(Warnick, are 2007).Issuesofassessment further ofpractices spacesrelated thelocal and to that construction ethos ownership the of complicated thefact by to howa range different of global examine arguinvisual rhetoric involves often col- versus multiple producers mentative socialpractices employed negotiating are in ethos(Fleckenstein, 2007). laboratively constructing and to drawon quo of instructors' of disputes challenges thestatus that use Analysis first-year composition both localandtheglobal(Moss,2011), example, the for criteria assessa visual to rhetoric found that assignment is immigrationbotha localand instructors difficulty had criteria coher- howtheissueofillegal of employing a global issue. to enceorclarity assesstheusesofvisualcomponents, the to more holistic assessleading instructorsemploy ments basedonaesthetic and aspects subjective impact Conclusion and Implications (Ferstle, 2007).

Strengthsand Limitations of a Social Perspective

for FurtherResearch

The valueand significance argumentative of reading in and writing thecontexts schooling beenone of has of One ofthestrengths a socialperspective thatit oftheunexamined is in of assumptions thestudy literacy shifts unit analysis thelocalevent a rhetorical instruction. one level, the of to as At mostauthors the beginwith
ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

296

thatargumentative and writing argumentative that to assumption reading writing has thepotential have lead inevitably reasonableness thoughtful to and con- actualuptake changing audience's in an beliefs acor sideration a topic. another of At we little tions(Berland Reiser, & research could level, know 2009).Further very about howreasonableness thoughtfulness and in the of with develop examine influence writing contexts poinclassroom contexts over and so actualuptake versus actualuptake differno on time, wehavetolook tential in toresearch other fields that encesin students' motivation writing and We (Prior, 2005)ortostudies quality. havelimited for K-12 and college also believe that more research needsto focuson how ecological validity classrooms evidence reading writ- acquiring for that and contributes thedevelto writing argument practices have effects areoften opment students' and community the that of civic ingargumentative writing engagement in most obvious ourreview that is al- (Flower, students more are to assumed. 2008)and whether Perhaps likely are there research and writing practices though programs emphasizing argu- acquireargumentative reading in of the mentative and placedin contexts which use ofargument reasoning themodeling argumentativewhen for status & 2005; 2002), has thepotential changing (Kuhn, problematic quo, ReznitskayaAnderson, reasoning the that students with a do these instructional experiences provide programs notaddress teach- socialworld in lives. in their methods promoting senseofthevalueofargument shaping er'suse ofspecific instructional and there of thedevelopment students' Moreover, is a needtoanalyze understand reading argumentative contribute to life teacher that of over and andwriting time thefeatures classroom influences, is,howteachers network that of of students' that appropriation ar- the development a social/audience impedeorfacilitate of the or and supports thwarts appropriation an argument knowledge strategies. gumentative inof re- schema within socialcontexts theclassroom the we the In ourreview, havesuggested need for examine instrucWe that and a struction. also needstudies a searchthatintegrates cognitive perspective in not discourse the and to socialperspective study teaching learning tional patterns only student-sponsored instructional in but and writing educational discussions alsointeacher-sponsored ofargumentative reading in in the conversations English artsclassrooms a wouldcombine contexts. Sucha research language agenda in is the withthe range schoolcontexts which focus inteachof and reasoning ofcognitive processes study for schemata stratagems and are of argument by study howsuchprocesses supported class- ingandlearning in and enactinstruction a argumentative as roomteachers they 2010, 2011). (Hillocks, writing plan adin In ourreview, also noteda lackofresearch we as contexts represented the rangeofinstructional readbetween et al., dressing number issuesoftransfer a of research collaborative Jadallah reasoning (e.g., of as in and A element doingso wouldinclude 2011). key analy- ing,writing, oralproduction wellas transfer different ordisciplines fields across that the sisoftheuse ofdiscourse occurs practices during lesson literacy how for in are that students mak- research examines, example, usesofarguinto as a window theways which about in to of and tasks. ment discussion an issuetransferswriting reading writing ingsenseofargumentative in et As and issue(e.g., woulddrawon theoretical em- that Suchan approach Reznitskaya al.,2007). wenoted to of related thestudy argumenand aboutdiscourse review, arguments processing text this pirical knowledge to and differ according adoption reading writing developed cognitive by psychologists, tative comprehension versus social a task or and as andthestudies literacy socialpractice events ofa cognitive position discourse of in or discourse. Students researchers interested how practice educational formulating position by developed of in class is arguments a literature basedon a discourse language usedintheclassroom. willbuildtheir claimson difthat occurwithin feminist Whatis also neededarestudies literary analysis thanwillstudents or socialcon- ferent of thecomplexities schooland nonschool presuppositions warrants of based on a discourse their and formulating arguments authentic texts uses ofactual, purposes involving or We found little no includ- newcriticism/formalist uses students' ofargument, audiences analysis. shaping in of awareness howdifferences on of and interpreta- research students' ingthevagaries teachers' students' differacross or and reasoning. discourses, presuppositions ofdiscussion, tions operating reading, writing, or in entfields disciplines, or to are Forexample, students more shapetheir arguments, how likely be engaged arstudents' serve recontextualize to ifthey addressing status thosediscourses are quo arguments generating certain related adopting to as socialpractices know guments their livesand ifthey affect issuesthatdirectly of or in audi- personas roles, or sucharguments result their that stances, beliefs, perceptions aumay making in encesaddressing 2009). quo (R. Beach dience(vanLeeuwen, problems thestatus Thereis also a need to developmorefine-tuned & Doerr-Stevens, 2009). the of of and teachersof- means assessing quality argumentative As previously noted,students reading in the of use tensions between tenexperience particularly terms assessing use evaluating ofar- and writing, in identified thisreview. an to fulfill assignment ofsocialpractices Although writing simply gumentative havebeen developed in assessment and criteria rubrics withno actual audienceuptakeversusengaging

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

297

for of tend one over reasons, perspective to favor function theothers, analysis theuse ofclaims,supporting and counterarguments, attention less has effective inmost socialandcultural contexts warrants, argument beendevoted analysis practices to of related develop- andacademic to domains in requires expertise allthree. ment ethos, of audience doubleThe successful reader writer be a person or will who identification, gaining different discourses stances, and usesofvisual can argue or new voicing effectively current perhaps rheusing and et rhetoric, so forth and to his (Prior al, 2007).Forexample, torical styles structures make orherownideonekey factor effective in is contributions tosignificant conversations within argumentative writing the ational use ofwhat Graffand Birkenstein as and acrossdomains,and whocan readthoughtfully (2006)described readers to whatand and write as with in will metacommentary informing authority waysthatothers find howwriters framing argument, are an disso- interesting convincing. and Becausethere so many are including ciation from certain familiar or that positions stances the arguments are important oursocial,cultural, to fact a student notadopting that is certain that academic, professional positions and and worlds, reading writcouldbe attributed their to (vanRees,2009). ingarguments in turn, matter developing position a of an are, Moreresearch neededthat is examines degree the to understanding what appropriate, when, of is and why, which use ofmetacommentary the the enhances effec- to and for to to whom, makea contribution thoseartiveness uptake argumentative and of writing. in effective compelling and We guments ways. believe We havealsoposited needfor the examining argu- that educational contexts dedicated, informed and wellment an ongoing as over time incorporates that process are to students' practitioners keys furthering opportunicollaborative discussion writing. and Further research tiesto suchknowledge argumentative of readacquire also needsto buildon thecollaborative rereasoning and writing. research an important to has role Yet, ing search(e.g., et how Reznitskaya al.,2009)to examine and playin enhancing sometimes changing teaching students' oral of dialogic adoption alternative perspec- andlearning; requires imaginative thoughtthis an and tives discourses online, and in interac- ful computer-based of and blending thecognitive socialperspectives. tions transfers students' to For argumentative writing. researchers the analyzing use ofonlineargumentative Notes one has or discussions, challenge to do withanalysis Felton and Kuhn (2001)implied distinction a between Although evaluation what a highly of is interactive process. versus argumentive aboutargument) (i.e., argumentative dis(i.e., Basedonassessments asynchronous of we discussions, putatious, contentious), haveoptedto use themorecommon Gant(2007)noted limitations theuse ofanalytic term the of argumentative. out and holistic to scoring employed assesstheappropri- 2Toulmin(1958/2003)pointedthatthat he did not have "in mind an analytical model like which,amongscholarsof ateness content support positions. noted of or for She came to be called 'the Toulminmodel'" (p. Communication, that can whereas vii). analytic scoring be timeconsuming, data from 1976to 2007,Bizup (2009)argued Usingcitation holistic notcapture and thatcomposition scholars havetendedto consider scoring may specific and criticize strengths weaknesses. proposed hybrid She a assessment or model Toulmin's rather making of than use layout modelofargument on and that the levels structure, ofdisagree- thefullarcofhisscholarship argument reasoning. analyzes argument of was in and For such ment, interaction. example, an assessment Preparation thisreview supported partbytheInstitute ofEducation Sciences theU.S. Department Education of of (grant consider degree which the to students "discuss might the do However, contents notnecessarily R305A100786). represent with agreement/disagreement classmates' analytical thepositions thepolicies theInstitute Education or of of Sciences or reflections provide and of explanation logic;and/or theU.S. Department Education. wouldalso liketoacknowlof We to respond questions as posed in classmates' analytical edgeDavid Bloome'ssuggestions regarding argument a social His and and reference of reflections, whenappropriate, assigned practice. ideas clarified deepenedourunderstanding and research, readings, independent examples, person- thisconcept. al experience" 2007, (Gant, 1). Figure Sheis particularly concerned aboutthedegree which to assessments are References D.D. (2008). The elementary letter: casTwo Anderson, related specific to course persuasive objectives. learning es ofsituated and Research the in competence, strategy, agency. In reviewing research from cognitive a perspective TeachingofEnglish, 42(3), 270-314. and a socialperspective, find we that eachprovides its Anderson, R.G.,Nguyen-Jahiel,McNurlen, Archodidou, K., ., ., ownparticular on teachers' and how insights support Kim,S., Reznitskaya, et al. (2001).The snowball ., phenomestudents and writing, non:Spread ways talking ways thinking groups of of and of across employ argumentative reading and thevalueofcombining theseperspectives ofchildren. Cognition Instruction, 1-46.doi:10.1207/ 19(1), suggesting S1532690XCI1901_l for other research As our literacy topics. an example, R. inhigher education: Argumentation Improving notion argumentative of andwritinginclusive Andrews, (2010). is reading and New practice through theory research. York: Routledge. ofHalliday's metafunctions: ideational, the the Andriessen, (2006). (1994) to In J. Arguing learn. R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The and Our makes clear interpersonal, thetextual. review handbook thelearning sciences 443-460). New Cambridge of (pp. that the and York: Press. although cognitive perspective thesocial Cambridge University
298

Reading Research Quarterly 46(3)

D. to Bergmann, & Zepernick, (2007). and M., Andriessen, Baker, & Suthers, (Eds.). (2003).Arguing L.S., J., J. Disciplinarity transfer: learn: in collaborative Students' of to WPAJournal, Confronting cognitions computer-supported 31(1/2), perceptions learning write. MA: Kluwer environments. Academic. 124-149. Norwell, learning in Berland, senseofargumentation Auten, & Lehr,F.). (1981).Writing ., L.K.,& Reiser, (2009). BJ. Applebee,A.N. (with Making IL: and areas.Urbana, the school: ScienceEducation, and explanation. 93(1),26-55.doi:10.1002/ secondary English thecontent of of National Council Teachers English. sce.20286 to Studies sec- Bernstein, (1996). A.N. (1984). Contexts learning write: B. control identity: and of for symbolic Theory, Pedagogy, Applebee, school instruction. London:Taylor Francis. & Norwood, Ablex. research, NJ: ondary critique. instruction. Berrill, (Ed.). (1996). A.N. (1991). Informal and D.B. on Creskill, Perspectiveswritten argument. Applebee, reasoning writing & InJ.F. D.N. Perkins, J.W. Voss, reasoning NJ: Hampton. Segal(Eds.),Informal . in texts: andeducation 401-414). G. Hillsdale, Erlbaum. Bezemer, & Kress, (2008)Writing multimodal A social NJ: J., (pp. as A.N. (1996). Curriculum conversation: account designs learning. of for Written Communication, Transforming semiotic Applebee, of and doi:10.1177/0741088307313177 traditionsteaching learning. 25(2),166-195. of Chicago: UniversityChicago next C.E. (2004). Press. G., Biancarosa, & Snow, for Reading - A vision acA to instrucin and school tionand research middle high A.N.,& Langer, (2006).Thestate writing literacy: report J.A. of Applebee, for data tellus. Albany: DC: schools:Whatexisting tionin America's CorporationNewYork. of Carnegie Washington, Alliance at Excellent Education. Centeron EnglishLearning& Achievement, University studies. State of Albany, UniversityNewYork. Bizup,J. (2009).The uses of Toulminin composition Fouressays and Thedialogic M.M. (1981). Bakhtin, 62(1), (M. imagination: College Composition Communication, W1-W23. and of Austin: The possibility actuality visualarguments. Ed. &C. Trans.). J.A. University Blair, (2004). Holquist, & Trans., Emerson, A in world: critical In C. Handa (Ed.), Visualrhetoric a digital ofTexasPress. Bedford/St. Martin's. and otherlate essays(C. sourcebook 344-363). Boston: M.M. (1986).Speechgenres Bakhtin, (pp. Austin: Bloome,D., Beierle, Grigorenko, & Goldman,S. (2009). Emerson M. Holquist, & M., M., Eds.,& V.W.McGee,Trans.). memocollective over Usesofintercontextuality, of UniversityTexasPress. Learning time: in of and ries, classroom Ball, D.L., & Forzani,F.M. (2007). 2007 Wallace Foundation chronotopes theconstruction learning in arts Language language classroom. opportunitiesa ninth-grade distinguished lecture: What makes education research andEducation, 313-334. doi:10.1080/09500780902954257 "educational"? Educational Researcher,36(9), 529-540. 23(4), doi:10.3102/0013189X07312896 B.M.,Otto,S., & Shuart-Faris, Bloome, Carter, Christian, D., S.P., and study classroom An tothe N. (2005).Discourse D. Barton, (2007). of analysis the of language Literacy: introduction ecology written A MA: Blackwell. events: microethnographic and literacy Mahwah, perspective. (2nd language ed.).Maiden, of and Erlbaum. of C. Bazerman, (1994). NJ: Systems genres theenactment social and I. In & intentions. A. Freedman P. Medway(Eds.),Genre the Bogost, (2007).Persuasive power videoof games:Theexpressive PA: MA: MIT Press. & rhetoric 79-101). new Bristol, Taylor Francis. games. Cambridge, (pp. and A ex- Booth, The rhetorical stance. transitions: sociocultural WC. (1963). Beach,K. (1999).Consequential Composition College in In & transfer education. A. Iran-Nejad P.D. Communication, 139-145. 14(3), beyond pedition in P.D. (Eds.). (2010).Immersed media: in Pearson(Eds.), Reviewofresearch education Bracken, C.C., & Skalski, (Vol. 24,pp. EducationalResearch in DC: American 101-139). life. Telepresenceeveryday NewYork: Routledge. Washington, K. Association. Brandt, & Clinton, (2002).Limitsofthelocal: Expanding D., as The pragmatics memowritof on Beach,R., & Anson,CM. (1988). of Journal Literacy perspectives literacy a socialpractice. in stratdifferences theuse ofrhetorical Research, 34(3),337-356. doi:10.1207/sl5548430jlr3403_4 ing:Developmental CR. (2008).I S., CA., Dandotkar, & Wolfe, Communication, M.A., Kurby, 5(2), 157-183.doi:10.1177/ Britt, egies. Written claims. Discourse for with what? 0741088388005002003 argument Memory simple agreed Neu;directionscomposiin L.S. Processes, 52-84.doi:10.1080/01638530701739207 Beach, & Bridwell, (Eds.).(1984). R., 45(1), disof A. New Guilford. tion research. York: Brooks, CD., & Jeong, (2006).Effects pre-structuring and on C. cussionthreads groupinteraction groupperformance Beach,R., & Doerr-Stevens, (2009).Learning pracargument Distance a of in computercollaborative Toward rhetoric significance online ticesthrough argumentation. supported role-play: & 371-390. doi:10.1080/01587910600940448 andtransformation. of Education, 52(6), 27(3), Literacy, Journal Adolescent Adult to the K. Resistance futile: is 460-468. Brooks, (2011). doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.6.1 "Reaccenting" present 66-80. to classroom C. create Beach,R., & Doerr-Stevens, (in press).Learning engagein 6(1), Pedagogies, dialogues. the In with in D.L. (2009). Bruce, Examining vidWriting visualimages: through participation onlinerole-play. dialogic argument in students. Research the education. of school and eo composition S. Kadjer& C. Young(Eds.),Technology English processes high 426-450. CT: Greenwich, Information Teaching English, of 43(4), Age. of inthe K. and S.W.(2006). Beck, Berkeley: University of Subjectivity intersubjectivity teaching Burke, (1969).A rhetoric motives. Research theTeaching English, in California Press. andlearning writing. of 40(4), of feaThe structural 413-460. Calfee, R.C, & Chambliss, MJ. (1987). design 357-378. texts. Educational constructtures large of B.R. (2010). of schoolstudents Portraits middle Belland, 22(3/4), Psychologist, for Research R.C, & Chambliss, (2011). MJ. designs empirilearning: Calfee, problem-based arguments during ingevidence-based In Educational scaffolds. The impact computer-based of of (Eds.),Handbook research Technology cal research. D. Lapp & D. Fisher New arts the onteaching English Research and Development, ed., 58(3), 285-309. doi:10.1007/ language (3rd pp. 386-399). York: S11423-009-9139-4 Routledge. of assessment the the M. Education theknowledge Camp,R. (1993). for Bereiter, & Scardamalia, (2006). , Changing modelfor direct & In In M.M. Williamson B.A. Huot (Eds.), Validating and models teaching instruction. P.A. of centered writing. age:Designand Theoretical empirical assessment: holistic Alexander PH. Winne(Eds.),Handbook educational & psyof scoring writing for Mahwah, Erlbaum. NJ: (2nd NJ: foundations 45-78).Cresskill, Hampton. (pp. chology ed.,pp. 695-713).

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

299

Councilon Advancing Adolescent Time Dwyer, M & I. The of C.P.,Hogan, J., Stewart, (2010). evaluation ar(2010). Carnegie Literacy. toact:An agenda advancing adolescent and as tool: the of for literacy college for gument mapping a learning Comparing effects map versus reading comprehension recall argutext career New on success. York: of and of Carnegie Corporation NewYork. reading ments. Skillsand Creativity, 16-22.doi:10.1016/ A.R. (2010).Argument foster to scientific 5(1), Thinking Cavagnetto, literacy: A review argument in of interventions K-12 sciencecontexts. j.tsc.2009.05.001 children: the ReviewofEducational Research, Reinventing develop80(3),336-371.doi:10.3102/ Dyson,A.H. (1995).Writing ment childhood of Written 0034654310376953 Communication, 4-46. 12(1), literacy. doi:10.1177/0741088395012001002 Textcuesandstrategies successful readers Chambliss, (1995). MJ. transfer: conchildren, use to construct gistoflengthy the written Transforming Unruly arguments. Reading Dyson,A.H. (1999). and of In order. A. texts, thepersistence thepedagogical trary Research Quarterly, 778-807. 30(4), & in (Eds.),Review research education Iran-Nejad P.D. Pearson of R. Do their minds Chambliss, & Garner, (1996). adults M.J., change DC: Educational (Vol.24,pp. 141-171). Washington, American after text? Communication, 29113(3), reading persuasive Written Research Association. 313.doi:10.1177/0741088396013003001 A.H. (2000). and Orallanguage in, Dyson, Writing theseaofvoices: P.K. & Murphy, (2002).Fourth fifth and Chambliss, M.J., graders and In & around, aboutwriting. R. Indrisano J.R. Squire(Eds.), the in structure written texts. Discourse representing argument on and Research, Perspectiveswriting: theory, practice 45-65). (pp. Processes, 91-115. doi:10.1207/Sl5326950DP3401_4 34(1), DE: Association. Newark, International Reading C.A. (2006).The microgenetic method: Current work and Chinn, in Dyson,A.H. (2008).The PineCone Wars:Studying writing a extensions classroom to research. J.L.Green, Camilli,& In G. of 305-315. Arts, community children. 85(4), Language P.R.Elmore Handbook complementary methods eduin (Eds.), of M.W., Aleven,V, & Scheines,R. (2007). Tis betEasterday, cation research 439-456). Mahwah, Erlbaum. (pp. NJ: terto construct to receive? or Effect diagrams analysis of on of The effect distant of audiences on Cohen,M, & Riel,M. (1989). socialpolicy. R. Luckin, In K.R. Koedinger, J.Greer(Eds.), & students' American Educational Research writing. 26(2), Journal, International on Proceedings the13th of Conference Artificial 143-159. in Amsterdam: IOS. IntelligenceEducation 93-100). (pp. Foundations argumen- Ehrlich, & Blum-Kulka, Coirier, & Andriessen, (Eds.). (2000). P., J. of S. (2010). Peertalkas a doubleopporS.Z., tative processing. text Amsterdam: Amsterdam Press. University discourse. Discourse & tunity space':The case ofargumentative of bar: The Correll,S. (1995).The ethnography an electronic 211-233. doi:10.1177/0957926509353847 21(2), Society, LesbianCafe. of Journal Contemporary 24(3), Ethnography, 270- Elbow, (2000). P. can toward hopeful a Everyone write: Essays theory 298.doi:10.1177/089124195024003002 and New ofwriting teaching writing. York:Oxford University Council of ChiefStateSchool Officers NationalGovernors & Press. Association. CoreStateStandards English Engestrm, (2009).The future activity Y (2010).Common of A draft. for theory: rough arts in and In A. Sannino,H. Daniels,& K.D. Gutierrez studies, science, language and literacy history/social (Eds.),Learning technical DC: Retrieved and expanding withactivity subjects. Washington, Author. August theory (pp. 303-328).New York: from Press. 16,2010, www.corestandards.org/the-standards Cambridge University of Crammond, J.G.(1998).The uses and complexity argument Erduran, S., & Jimnez-Aleixandre,M. P. (Eds.). (2008). in structures expertand student inscience education: Written Argumentation Perspectives classroompersuasive from writing. based research. York: New doi:10.1177/0741088398015002004 Communication, 230-268. 15(2), Springer. from below: Negotiating inV. activist Crisco, (2009). Activating literacy: Discovering disposi- Evensen,L.S. (2002). Convention teractionand culture in argumentative tions civicidentity for writing.Written Studies, Composition development. 37(2), doi:10.1177/074108802237750 Communication, 382-413. 31-51. 19(3), M.K. (2004).The development discourse of in M. and the of strategies Crowhurst, (1990). Teaching learning writing persua- Felton, adolescent Cognitive argumentation. Development, 35-52. 19(1), discourse. CanadianJournal Education, sive/argumentative of doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.001 348-359. 15(4), S. arM.K., & Herko, (2004).Fromdialogueto two-sided D.F. Derived structural schmas thetransfer Felton, and Dansereau, (1995). adolescents' gument: Scaffolding persuasive Journal of writing. ofknowledge. A. McKeough, Lupart, A. Marini(Eds.), In & J. Adolescent Adult & 672-683. Literacy, 47(8), in Teaching transfer: for Fostering generalization learning (pp. The development argumentative of Felton, & Kuhn,D. (2001). M., Mahwah, Erlbaum. 93-121). NJ: discourse skill. Discourse 135-153. Processes, 32(2/3), W.M. (2009). A "raDavies, Computer-assisted argument mapping: Ferretti, R.P., Andrews-Weckerly, & Lewis, W.E. (2007). S., tionale" 799-820. Education, Higher 58(6), approach. the of with Improving argumentative writing students learning & Li, Y (2008).Collaborative T, Anderson, R.C.,Kim,I., Dong, disabilities: and considerations. & Descriptive normative Reading in Research reasoning ChinaandKorea. Reading Quarterly, 43(4), doi:10.1080/10573560701277740 23(3), Writing Quarterly, 267-285. 400-424. doi:10.1598/RRQ.43.4.5 Ferretti, R.P.,MacArthur, CA., & Dowdy,N.S. (2000).The efM. Dowell, Tscholl, Gladisch, & Asgari-Targhi, (2009). M., T, J., fectsof an elaborated of goal on thepersuasive writing stuschemeand sharedonline diagramming in Argumentation dentswithlearning disabilities their and normally achieving case-based collaborative In D. P. learning. C. O'Malley, Suthers, peers. Journalof Educational Psychology, 92(4), 694-702. & A. Reimann, A. Dimitracopoulou, (Eds.),Computer Supported doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694 CollaborativeLearning Practices: CSCL2009 Conference Ferstle, T. (2007).Assessing visual rhetoric: Problems, practices Greece: International Rhodes, (Vol. Proceedings 1,pp. 567-575). andpossible solutions. VDM Verlag Dr. Saarbrcken, Germany: of Sciences. Society theLearning Mller. Griffin: Fleckenstein, (2007). Dubisar,A.M., & Palmeri, (2010).Palin/pathos/Peter J. K.S. Who'swriting? Aristotelian andthe ethos Political videoremix composition and and author in Computers pedagogy. Retrieved 21, Kairos, position digital 11(3). poetics. July 27(2), Composition, 77-93. kairos.technorhetoric. 3/binder.html?topoi/ net/11. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2010.03.004 2010,from course:Conflict, and Durst,R.K. (1999).Collision fleckenstein /index, html negotiation, in IL: Councilof Flower, (1989). L. Urbana, National and learning college composition. context, theory Cognition, College building. Teachers English. of and Composition Communication, 282-311. 40(3),

300

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

L. and rhetoric public en- Haswell,R.H., Briggs, Flower, (2008).Community TL., Fay,J.A.,Gillen,N.K., Harrill, literacy the R., of Garbondale: Southern Illinois Press. Context rhetorical and stratgagement. A.M.,etal. (1999). University Shupala, reading L. to A Flower, Long, & Higgins, (2000). L., E., revisited. Written Learning rival: literCommunication, (1988) egies:Haas andFlower atepractice intercultural Mahwah, Erlbaum. 3-27.doi:10.1177/0741088399016001001 for inquiry. NJ: 16(1), A. Genres argument arguments genres. Hayes,J.R. (2006). New directions writing of and as Freedman, (1996). in In theory. C.A. In D.P. Berrill on S. & (Ed.),Perspectives written argument 91(pp. MacArthur, Graham, J.Fitzgerald (Eds.),Handbook writof Cresskill, Hampton. research 28-40).NewYork: 120). NJ: Guilford. ing (pp. reedman, ., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can t & L.S. (1980).Identifying organization the Hayes,J.R., Flower, write arguments. English in Education, 18(2), 73-84. ofwriting processes.In L.W. Gregg& E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), doi:10.1111/j.l754-8845.1984.tb00668.x in NT: Cognitive processes writing 3-30).Hillsdale, Erlbaum. (pp. R. the in IL: Fulkerson, (1996). Urbana, Teaching argument writing. M. visualrhetorics. Hill,CA., & Helmers, (Eds.). (2004).Defining National of Council Teachers English. of Mahwah, Erlbaum. NJ: discussions:An ex- Hillocks, Jr. Gant,G. (2007). Assessingasynchronous New G., (1999). Ways thinking, of of ways teaching. York: model.Online ploratory hybrid of Journal DistanceLearning Teachers Press. College March1,2011, from www.west- Hillocks, Jr. Administration, Retrieved 10(3). assessG., (2002).Thetesting trap:How statewriting ga.edu/~distance/oidla/falll03/efantl03.htm ments control New Teachers CollegePress. learning. York: . Grate, Melero, .,Tejerina, Echevarra, & Gutierrez, Hillocks, (2007). M., I., ., G. in In schools. C. Bazerman Writing secondary R. (2007). Written abilitiesof 4thgrade stuargumentative on school, (Ed.),Handbook research writing: of History, society, dents compulsory of An education: integrated edusecondary text NewYork: Erlbaum. individual, (pp.311-329). cationalintervention. Infncia Aprendizaje, y 30(4), 589-602. Hillocks, Jr. for and G., (2010). Teaching argument critical thinking doi:10.1174/021037007782334346 An 99(6),24-32. writing: introduction. English Journal, Situated and A Gee,J.P. (2004). language learning: critique tradi- Hillocks, Jr. of claims G., (2011). Teaching argument writing: Supporting tional NewYork: Routledge. schooling. with relevant evidence and clearreasoning. NH: Portsmouth, & and Gee,J.P., Green, J.L. (1998).Discourseanalysis, learning, Heinemann. A socialpractice: methodological Review Research in of study. D.R. (2004).Through eyesofmyreader: strategy the A Holliway, Education, 119-169. 23, for audience in writimproving perspective children's descriptive M. others' in Glat, (2003). Taking perspectives a peerinteractional Research Childhood in 334-349. Education, of ing. Journal 18(4), whilepreparing a written for setting argument. Languageand doi:10.1080/02568540409595045 332-354. doi:10.1080/09500780308666855 Education, 17(5), P.D. (Eds.). (1999).Review research ., & Pearson, of reasoned argu- Iran-Nejad, Gillies, R.M., & Khan, A. (2009). Promoting in education: 24.Washington, American Vol. DC: Educational and learning during smallmentation, problem-solving Research Association. group work.Cambridge Journalof Education,39(1), 7-27. R. and The construction Ivani, (1998). Writing identity: discoursal of doi:10.1080/03057640802701945 in identity academic writing. Philadelphia: Benjamins. lohn G. (2009). boundaries: From student resistance Gorzelsky, Working the ., Jackson, & Wallin,J. (2009). Rediscovering "back-andtostudent and agency. College Composition Communication, 61(1), forthness" rhetoric theageofYouTube. of in College Composition 64-84. andCommunication, W374-W396. 61(2), G. Clueless academe: in Howschooling obscures life the Graff, (2003). M., R.C.,Nguyen-Jahiel,Miller, K., B.W., Kim, Jadallah, Anderson, mind. NewHaven, YaleUniversity CT: Press. ofthe Influence a teacher's of moves I.,Kuo,L., etal. (2011). scaffolding & Birkenstein,(2006)."They C. that Graff, G., say/I say":Themoves child-led discussions. American Educational during small-group in matter academic New W.W.Norton. writing. York: Research doi:10.3102/0002831210371498 48(1),194-230. Journal, S. instruction theteaching writing: and of Graham, (2006). Strategy ., arguA meta-analysis. G.A. MacArthur, Graham, Fitzgerald Jamaludin, Chee,Y.S., & Ho, C.M.L. (2009).Fostering In S. &J. mentative construction enactive playin role knowledge through research 187-207). New York: (Eds.),Handbook writing of (pp. Second & 317-329. Life. ComputersEducation, 53(2), doi:10.1016/j. Guilford. compedu.2009.02.009 & Elmore, P.B. (Eds.). (2006).Handbook Green, Gamilli, G., J.L., . C.C. about L.R, Writing methods education in research. Mahwah,NJ: Johannessen, Kahn, .,& Walter, (2009). ofcomplementary literature ed.).Urbana, National IL: CouncilofTeachers of (2nd Erlbaum. English. A. as a Green, Dixon,G.N.,& Zaharlick, (2003). J.L., Ethnography R.T. The D.W.,& Johnson, (2009).Energizing In learning: & logicofinquiry. J.Flood,D. Lapp,J.R. Jensen Johnson, Squire, J.M. instructional Educational Researcher, Handbook research teaching English powerofconflict. 38(1), on the arts (Eds.), of language 37-51. doi:10.3102/0013189X08330540 Mahwah, Erlbaum. (2nded.,pp. 201-224). NJ: R., S., J. examining Haas, C., & Flower,L. (1988). Rhetoricalreadingstrategies Joiner, Jones, & Doherty, (2008).Two studies in mediated communiand the construction meaning.CollegeComposition of and argumentationasynchronous computer cation. International & in Journal Research Method Education, of Communication, 167-183. 39(2), 243-255. doi:10.1080/17437270802416848 M.A.K. (1970). and func31(3), Halliday, Languagestructure language R. Audience awareness Internet and tion. J.Lyons(Ed.),Newhorizons linguistics 140-165). Karchmer-Klein, (2007). In in pub(pp. A of how England: Penguin. Harmondsworth, lishing: qualitative analysis factors influencing fourth write electronic Action Teacher text. in M.A.K. (1994). introduction An to Education, graders 29(2), Halliday, functional (2nd grammar 39-50. Edward Arnold. ed.).London: V. Harlem ourminds: on in world: critical Kinloch, (2010). A Handa,G. (Ed.). (2004).Visualrhetoric a digital Place,race,andtheliteraciesofurban sourcebook. NewYork: Boston: Teachers Bedford/St. Martin's. youth. CollegePress. D.D. (1995). Wheredid youhearthat? Kirschner, Shum, C.L., P.A., &Carr,C.S. (Eds.).(2003). Harrington, & Bielby, S.J.B., Visualizing and social of The tools and Technology the argumentation: organizationgossip. Sociological Software forcollaborative educational London:Springer-Verlag. Quarterly, 607-628. 36(3), doi:10.1111/j.l533-8525.1995.tb00456.x sense-making.

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

301

. of external Lunsford, Toulmin'smodelin the K.J.(2002).Contextualizing Kobayashi, (2009).The influence topicknowledge, classroom: case study. A Written on Communication, use, 19(1), strategy andcollege experience students' comprehension writing 109-174. doi:10.1177/074108830201900105 and ofcontroversial Learning Individual texts. 29(1), Differences, 130-134. Marini,., & Gnreux,R. (1995).The challengeofteaching doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001 In for transfer. A. McKeough, Lupart,& A. Marini(Eds.), K. (2010). Strategic use of multipletextsforthe J. Kobayashi, in evaluation arguments. of Teaching transfer: for Fostering generalization learning (pp. ReadingPsychology, 31(2),121-149. doi:10.1080/02702710902754192 Mahwah, Erlbaum. 1-19). NJ: P. R.A.,Orellana, M.F.,Pacheco, & Carbone, (2008). M., students talkaboutex- Martinez, to Kucan,L., & Beck,I.L. (2003).Inviting Foundintranslation: to A texts: comparison twodiscourseenvironments of Connecting translating experiences acapository demicwriting. 421-431. Arts, on Researchand and theireffects comprehension. Language 85(6), Reading McAlister, Ravenscroft, & Scanlon,E. (2004).Combining S., ., Instruction, 1-29. 42(3), interaction context and to collaborative New York:Cambridge design support argumenKuhn,D. (1991).The skillsofargument. tation CMC. Journal Computer of Press. usinga toolfor synchronous University Assisted 20(3),194-204. Learning, D. Education thinking. MA: Kuhn, (2005). for Cambridge, Harvard Student McCann,T.M. (1989). argumentative writing knowledge Press. University and ability threegradelevels.Research theTeaching at in of A. as Kuhn, & Crowell, (inpress). D., Dialogicargumentationa ve62-76. 23(1), English, adolescents' hiclefor developing young thinking. Psychological acrossthecurriculum: Melzer,D. (2009).Writing assignments Science. A nationalstudyof collegewriting. and CollegeComposition D. & Shaenfield, (2008). D., K., Kuhn, Goh,W.,Iordanou, Arguing Communication, W240-W261. 61(2), A onthecomputer: microgenetic ofdeveloping study argument The effects con of E., P., in skills a computerenvironment. Development, Midgette, Haria, & MacArthur, (2008). Child supported tent audience and awareness revision thepersuasive on goalsfor 1310-1328. 79(5), doi:10.1111/j.l467-8624.2008.01190.x of and students. and essays fifth- eighth-grade Reading Writing, W. The development argument of skills. Kuhn, & Udell, (2003). D., 131-151. doi:10.1007/slll45-007-9067-9 Child 1245-1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.0060522(1/2), 74(5), Development, D. and Miller, C.R., & Charney, (2007).Persuasion, audience, arof of J.A.(1992). Langer, Speaking knowing: Conceptions underIn on (Ed.),Handbook research writing: of gument. C. Bazerman inacademic In A. Herrington C. Moran & standing disciplines. text NewYork: school, individual, (pp. 583-589). History, society, and in disciplines 69(Eds.),Writing, teaching, learning the (pp. Erlbaum. Modern Association. 85).NewYork: Language .., & Lewis,. (2007).Examining to opportunities learn instruction: J.A. Effective literacy Building successful Moje, Langer, (2002). The sociocultural research. In literacy: roleofcritical literacy and IL: Councilof Urbana, National reading writing programs. C. Lewis,P. Enciso,& E.B. Moje (Eds.),Reframing socioculturTeachers English. of al research literacy: on and Identity, agency, power (pp. 15-48). A.N. (1987). Howwriting J.A., shapes thinking: Mahwah, Erlbaum. Langer, & Applebee, NJ: A study teaching learning and No. (NCTE Research of Report 22). G. to W., Morgan, & Beaumont, (2003).A dialogicapproach arIL: Council Teachers English. of of Urbana, National gumentation: Usinga chatroomto developearlyadolescent C.A. (2009). students' Larson, A.A.,Britt, M.A.,&Kurby, Improving students' & of Journal Adolescent Adult argumentative writing. The evaluation informal of of arguments. Journal Experimental 146-157. Literacy, 47(2), 339-366. Education, 77(4), doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366 in research teaching learning and the Moss,G. (2011). Ethnographic and Laurinen, & Marttunen, (2007).Written L.I., MJ. arguments arts: the contexts teaching of English language Studying cultural the collaborative speechactsinpractising argumentative power and learning English the arts.In D. Lapp & D. Fisher language oflanguage chat and Computers Composition, (Eds.),Handbook research teaching English through debates. on the arts of language 230-246. ' 24(3), doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.05.002 NewYork: ed., (3rd pp. 370-374). Routledge. & E. Situated Lave,J., Wenger, (1991). learning: Legitimate periph- Nussbaum, CM. (2005).The effects goalinof E.M., & Kardash, eral New Press. participation. York: Cambridge University structions text thegeneration counterarguments and on of dur. with and newmedia:Toward old Leander, (2009).Composing 97(2),157-169. Journal Educational of Psychology, ingwriting. a parallelpedagogy. V. Carrington M. Robinson(Eds.), In & doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157 Social learning classroom and practices Digitalliteracies: (pp. Nussbaum, E.M., & Schraw, G. (2007). PromotingarguThousand 147-164). Oaks,CA: Sage. in The ment-counterargument integration students' writing. K.K. (2003). Leander, K.M.,& McKim, everyday Tracingthe 'sitings' Education, 76(1),59-92. doi:10.3200/ of Journal Experimental A ofadolescents theInternet: strategic on of adaptation ethnograJEXE.76.1.59-92 across online offline and Communication Nystrand, (1986). structurewritten spaces.Education, phy M. The communication: Studies of & Information, 211-240. doi:10.1080/14636310303140 3(2), inreciprocity and FL: between writers readers. Orlando, Academic. Lee, CD. (2007). The tole of culturein academic literacies: Nystrand, (2006).The socialand historical M. context writing for our in midst the New of whirlwind. York: Conducting blooming the In research. A. MacArthur, Graham, J.Fitzgerald S. & (Eds.), Teachers Press. Handbook writing research 11-27). NewYork: Guilford. College of (pp. T. as and Lillis, (2008). W. On Ethnographymethod, methodology, "deep Nystrand, Gamoran, & Carbonaro, (2001). theecolM., ., textand context acain thegap between in instruction: case ofwriting high The school theorizing": Closing ogyofclassroom demic research. Written Communication, 353-388. In L. and 25(3), writing English socialstudies. P. Tynjl, Mason,& K. Lonka doi:10.1177/0741088308319229 as tool: and (Eds.),Writing a learning Integrating theory practice and in The Klu Academic. J. Lindquist, (2002). place tostand:Politics persuasion a Dordrecht, Netherlands: wer (pp. 57-81). bar. Oxford Press. An N. in s clothing: working-class NewYork: University M., Report argument Nystrand, & Graff, (2001). M. in on writing instruction a seventh-grade G., ., Lund,K., Molinari, Sjourn, & Baker, (2007).How perspective ecological do argumentation The School 479-493. classroom. Elementary diagrams comparewhenstudent pairsuse 102(4), Journal, them a meansfor as debateoras a toolfor debate? Page-Voth, & Graham,S. (1999).Effects goal setting of and V., representing International Collaborative use and of of Journal Computer-Supported strategy on thewriting performance self-efficacy 273-295. doi:10.1007/sll412-007-9019-z studentswith writingand learningproblems.Journalof 2(2/3), Learning,

302

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)

Educational P. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91 byJ.V. NewYork: Wertsch, del Rio,& A. Alvarez, Eds., 1995, 92(2), Psychology, 230-240. .2.230 Press) Cambridge University G. W. connections: Discourse-oriented Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, Parodi, (2007). L., T, D.R., & Archer, (1999). Reading-writing socialpresence asynchronous in research. text-based 20(3), 225-250.doi:10.1007/ Assessing Readingand Writing, computer The 50-71. S11145-006-9029-7 conferencing. Journal Distance of Education. 14(2). D.R. (2009).Uses ofactivity in written communiA. (2010).Languageas a local practice. New York: Russell, theory Pennycook, cationresearch. A. Sannino,H. Daniels,& K.D. Gutierrez In Routledge. and with P. The card: (Eds.),Learning expanding activity Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, (2005). nation's M, W., theory 40-52). (pp. report NewYork: Press. Cambridge Universitv DC: National Reading2005 (NGES 2006-451). Washington, in contexts: Center Education for Institute Education of Statistics, Vygorskian Sciences, Russell,D.R. (2010).Writing multiple CHAT meets phenomenology genre. Bazerman, the In of R. U.S. Department Education. of K. S. et Krut, Lunsford, McLeod, S. Null,P. Rogers, al. (Eds.), Y. H.R., Daane, M.C., & Jin, (2003).The nation's Persky, report Traditionswriting research 353-364). NewYork: card:Writing (NCES 2003-529). 2002 DC: of (pp. Routledge. Washington, National A. A and M., Center Education for Institute Education of Statistics, Sciences, Sadoski, & Paivio, (2001).Imagery text: dual coding and Mahwah, Erlbaum. theory reading writing. U.S. Department Education. of of NJ: L. T., M., K.W. Student ethosintheonline technical com- Salminen, Marttunen, & Laurinen, (2010).Visualising Pickering, (2009). from chatdebates argument in munication classroom: Diverse Journal of voices. Technical diagrams. Communication knowledge Assisted Computer 26(5),379-391. Learning, doi:10.1080/10572250802708303 18(2), Quarterly, 166-187. B.M. (Eds.),(inpress). supportfor Educational tech- Scardamalia,M., & Bereiter, (1994).Computer Pinkwart, & McLaren, N., communities. Journal theLearning The knowledge-building of skills. Park, Bentham Oak IL: nologies teaching for argumentation Sciences. 265-283. 3(3). Science. Scheuer,., Loll, F., Pinkwart, & McLaren, B.M. (2010). ., mall Powell, A.G.,Farrar, & Cohen,D.K. (1985).Theshopping E., A review thestate the of of Computer-supported argumentation: school: Winners losers theeducational and in high marketplace. art.International Collaborative Journal Computerof Supported Boston: Mifflin. Houghton doi:10.1007/sll412-009-9080-x 5(1), Learning, 43-102. M. P.B., R., T., Pressley, (with El-Dinary, Brown, Schuder, Bergman, R. ina B.B.,& De Groot, (2007). Argumentation changing A instruc- Schwarz, York, et al.). (1995). transactional M., J.L., strategies world. International Collaborative Journal Computerof Supported tionChristmas carol.In A. McKeough, Lupart, A. Marini & J. 297-313. doi:10.1007/sll412-007-9020-6 Learning, 2(2/3), in learning (Eds.),Teaching transfer: for Fostering generalization A. control and Schwarz, B.B.,& Glassner, (2007).The roleoffloor NT: Mahwah, Erlbaum. (pp. 177-213). ofontology argumentative in activities withdiscussion-based P.A. (1998). A sociohistoric account Prior, Writing/ disciplinarity: of tools.International Collaborative Journal Computerof Supported literate in academy. NT: activity the Mahwah, Erlbaum. doi:10.1007/sll412-007-9024-2 2(4), Learning, 449-478. P. (2005).Towardthe ethnography argumentation: of A Prior, S. Twowrongs Schwarz, B.B.,Neuman, & Biezuner, (2000). Y, may responseto RichardAndrews' 'Models of argumentation makea right... they if and argue Cognition Instruction, together! in educationaldiscourse.'Text,25(1), 129-144.doi:10.1515/ 461-494. doi:10.1207/Sl532690XCI1804_2 18(4), text.2005.25.1.129 S. stratSexton, Harris, M., K.R.,& Graham, (1998). Self-regulated Prior, Solberg, Berry, Bellwoar, Chewning, Lunsford, P., P., H., ., J., and Effects essay on egy development thewriting process: writing et al. (2007).Re-situating re-mediating canons: and the K.J., andattributions. Children, Exceptional 64(3),295-311. A cultural-historical of Kairos, Shanahan, & remapping rhetorical activity. litT, Shanahan, (2008).Teachingdisciplinary Retrieved from kairos.technorhetoric. 9, 11(3). September 2010, to content-area Harvard eracy adolescents: Rethinking literacy. net/1 html 1.3/topoi/prior-et-al/mapping/index. Educational 40-59. Review, 78(1), A J.D., J.C. Ramage, Bean, , & Johnson, (2007). J. Writing arguments: Sheehy, (2003). The social lifeof an essay: M. Standardizing rhetoric readings ed.).NewYork: with (7th Longman. forcesin writing. Written Communication, 20(3), 333-385. PL. (2009).Thenation's reB.D.,Dion,G.S.,& Donahue, Rampey, doi:10.1177/0741088303257279 card:NAEP 2008trends academic in port (NCES 2009- Sheridan, Michel, & Ridolfo, (2009). progress Kairos newmedia: and D., T, J. DC: Center Education for Statistics, 479).Washington, National Toward theory practice visualactivism. a and of Enculturation, Institute Education of U.S. of Sciences, Department Education. from 6(2). Retrieved 10,2010, July enculturation.gmu.edu/6.2/ R.C. (2002).The argument schema ., Reznitskaya, & Anderson, sheridan-michel-ridolfo and learning reason.In C.C. Block& M. Pressley(Eds.), to L.S. (1997).Disciplines inquiry education: new in of A Shulman, instruction: Research-based practices best Comprehension (pp. overview. R.M. Jaeger In methods (Ed.), Complementary for NewYork: Guilford. 319-334). research education(2nd ed., pp. 3-19). Washington, in DC: and ., R.C, & Kuo,L. (2007).Teaching Reznitskaya, Anderson, American Educational Research Association. The School learning argumentation. Elementary 107(5), Smagorinsky,(2011). Journal, P. andmethod research literacy in on Theory 449_472. and in and practices: Adaptations alignment research praxis. ., R.C, McNurlen, Nguyen-Jahiel, ., K., Reznitskaya, Anderson, In D. Lapp & D. Fisher(Eds.),Handbook research teachon of Influence oraldiscussion of on Archodidou, & Kim,S. (2001). ., arts(3rded.,pp. 405-409).NewYork: ingtheEnglish language written argument. Discourse 155-175. Processes, 32(2/3), Routledge. ., Reznitskaya, Kuo, L., Clark,., Miller,., Jadallah,M., in classrooms: Notes Smidt, (2002).Double histories multivocal J. Collaborative A Anderson, R.C, etal. (2009). toward ecological an account writing. of Written reasoning: dialogic Communication, to discussions. 414-443. approach group doi:10.1177/074108802237753 Cambridge Journal Education, of 19(3), 29-48.doi:10.1080/03057640802701952 39(1), Rhetorical as entreJ.M.(2010). Spartz, savvy socialskill: Modeling B. sociocultural on construction within educational content manRogoff, (2008). Observing activity three planes: preneur identity and The Participatory appropriation, guidedparticipation, apprenInstructor, Retrieved 24, agement systems. Writing May. July In & and from ticeship. K. Hall,P. Murphy, J.Soler(Eds.),Pedagogy 2010, www.writinginstructor.com/spartz Culture identities 58-74). and Thousand F. arOaks,A: practice: ., ., (pp. Stegmann, Weinberger, & Fischer, (2007). Facilitating from studies mind, 139-164, construction computerwith Sage.(Reprinted Sociocultural of pp. gumentative knowledge supported

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

303

International collaboration D. The Conversational contexts arJournal Computerof Supported Walton, (1998). newdialectic: scripts. of Collaborative of Press. Toronto, Canada:UniversityToronto ON, 2(4), 421-447.doi:10.1007/sll412-007 gument. Learning, -9028-y Walton,D. (2007). Dialog theory critical argumentation. for B.V. Critical to in Socialliteracies: Street, (1995). approaches literacy John Philadelphia: Benjamins. and New D. dialectic rhetorical and invention. Walton, (2011). development, ethnography education. York: Longman. Computational AI & Society, 3-17.doi:10.1007/s00146-010-0279-l Street,B. (2004). Academic literaciesand the 'new orders': 26(1), in in for and F. schemes. D., writing high- Walton, Reed,C, & Macagno, (2008). Implications research practice student Argumentation and in ereducation. NewYork: Press. 1(1), Learning Teaching theSocial Sciences, University Cambridge 9-20.doi:10.1386/ltss.l.l.9/0 the circle: Cross-classroom M., Ward, Sr.(2009). Squaring learning An CD. (2003). experimental Suthers, D.D., & Hundhausen, collaborations and the impactof audience on studentoutstudy learnoftheeffects representational of on and comesinprofessional guidance collaborative Journal Business Technical of writing. Sciences, 12(2),183-218. of Journal theLearning ingprocesses. Communication, 61-82.doi:10.1177/1050651908324381 23(1), E. 'transfer' FYC: Preliminary from doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2 Wardle, (2007). Understanding N. D.D., Vatrapu, Medina,R.,Joseph, & Dwyer, R., S., Suthers, 65-85. results a longitudinal of WPAJournal, study. 31(1/2), discussion: threaded B. Persuasion politics the and on (2008). online: Representational guidance Warnick, (2007).Rhetoric Beyond inasynchronous collaborative environments. Computers NewYork: Peter World WideWeb. learning Lang. & Education, 1103-1127. 50(4), Mindas action. NewYork: Oxford Wertsch, (1998). J.V. University in K. communities online courses: Swan, (2002). Building learning Press. Communication Wiley, & Bailey, (2006). & The importance interaction. of Education, and Effects collaboration argumenof J., J. 2(1),23-49.doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016 Information, from Web pages.In A.M. O'Donnell,C.E. tation learning on D. America's of war The culture: Tannen, (1999). argument Stopping reason& Hmelo-Silver,G. Erkens (Eds.),Collaborative learning, New Ballantine. words. York: and Hillsdale, Erlbaum. NJ: ing, technology 297-322). (pp. S.E. The Toulmin, (2003). uses argument ed.).NewYork: Wiley, & Voss, (1999). of (Updated from J., J.F. arguments multiple Constructing Press.(Original work 1958) published Cambridge University Tasksthat and notjustmemsources: promote understanding A. An toreasonR., Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, (1984). introduction S., text. 91(2), of Psychology, 301-311. Journal Educational oryfor Macmillan. ing(2nded.).NewYork: doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301 G. vanAmelsvoort, Andriessen, & Kanselaar, (2008).How Wolfe, M, J., M.A. (2008).The locus ofthemyside bias C.R., & Britt, when and students structure relate knowledge argumentative in written & 14(1),1-27. Thinking Reasoning, argumentation. with in Behavior, ComputersHuman learning together diagrams. doi:10.1080/13546780701527674 24(3),1293-1313. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.004 M.A., & Butler, Wolfe,C.R., Britt, J.A. (2009).Argumentation R. A vanEemeren, F.H.,& Grootendorst, (2004). systematic theory schemaand themyside in written bias Written argumentation. New York: The approach. ofargumentation: pragma-dialectical doi:10.1177/0741088309333019 Communication, 183-209. 26(2), Press. University Cambridge Can first-grade writers demonstrate Wollman-Bonilla, (2001). J.E. A..S.(2002). vanEemeren, .,Grootendorst, & Henkemans, R., Research audience awareness? 36(2), Quarterly, 184-201. Reading Mahwah, evaluation, presentation. NJ: Analysis, Argumentation: doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.2.4 Erlbaum. A.F.,Johnson-Eilola, Seife,C.L., & Sire,G. (2004). J., Wysocki, vanEemeren, F.H.,Grootendorst, Henkemans, Blair, R., F.S., J.A., new and the for Writing media:Theory applications expanding R.H., Krabbe,E.C.W.,et al. (1996).Fundamentals Johnson, of Press. teaching composition. of University Logan:UtahState A and theory: handbook historical of backgrounds argumentation education: Yeh,S.S. (1998). Teaching Empowering argumentative Mahwah, Erlbaum. NJ: contemporary developments. students. Research in to middle-school writing cultural minority T. and New vanLeeuwen, (2008). Discourse practice: tools critical for theTeaching English, 49-83. 33(1), of New Oxford Press. discourse analysis. York: University T. as ofsovanLeeuwen, (2009). Discourse therecontextualization in E. Newell is a professor the School of Teaching A cialpractice: guide.In R. Wodak& M. Meyer (Eds.),Methods George at and Learning The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus,USA; discourse Thousand (2nded., pp. 144-161). ofcritical analysis e-mailgnewell@ehe.osu.edu. Oaks,CA: Sage. A in discussions: vanRees,A. (2009).Dissociation argumentative New in of RichardBeach is a professor the Department pragma-dialectical perspective. York: Springer. Voss, J.F. (2005). Toulmin's model and the solving of ill- Curriculum Instruction the University Minnesota, of and at doi:10.1007/ structured 19(3), Argumentation, 321-329. problems. Minneapolis,USA; e-mail rbeach@umn.edu. S10503-005-4419-6 Mindin society: development higher The L.S. of Vygotsky, (1978). VanDerHeide are doctoral JamieSmithand Jennifer (M. psychological processes Cole,Trans.& Ed.; V.John-Steiner, in at MA: Harvard students the School ofTeachingand Learning The Ohio S. Scribner, . Souberman, & Eds.). Cambridge, USA. StateUniversity, Press. University

304

ReadingResearchQuarterly 46(3)