Child Language Teaching and Therapy http://clt.sagepub.

com/

Argumentative writing in pre-adolescents: The role of verbal reasoning

Marilyn A. Nippold and Jeannene M. Ward-Lonergan Child Language Teaching and Therapy 2010 26: 238 originally published online 27 May 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0265659009349979 The online version of this article can be found at: http://clt.sagepub.com/content/26/3/238

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Child Language Teaching and Therapy can be found at: Email Alerts: http://clt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://clt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://clt.sagepub.com/content/26/3/238.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 23, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 27, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

Argumentative writing in pre-adolescents: T he role of verbal reasoning

Marilyn A. Nippold
University of Oregon, USA

Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3) 238248 The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0265659009349979 http://clt.sagepub.com

Jeannene M. Ward-Lonergan
University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA

Abstract Argumentative writing is a challenging communication task that calls upon sophisticated cognitive and linguistic abilities. Pre-adolescents (n = 80; mean age = 11;10; range = 10;613:5) were asked to write an argumentative essay on the controversial topic of training animals to perform in circuses. Additionally, they were asked to solve a set of verbal reasoning problems. Children whose essays reflected a more flexible attitude toward the controversy (Conditional subgroup) outperformed their peers whose attitude was more rigid (Absolute subgroup) on all key measures: Verbal Analogical Reasoning, Total Number of Reasons, and Mean Length of Utterance in Words. Implications for instruction and intervention with pre-adolescents are discussed. Keywords argumentative writing, pre-adolescents, verbal reasoning

I Introduction
In an argumentative essay, the writer takes a position and tries to convince the reader to perform an action or to adopt a point of view regarding a controversy. For example, a current controversy surrounds the effort to limit global warming by requiring auto makers to produce more efficient vehicles, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions. While most environmentalists favor this action, many executives argue that it would unduly burden the struggling auto industry. To be successful, the argumentative writer must articulate a position, anticipate counterarguments, and reply to opposing points of view in an organized fashion. This challenging communication task requires
Corresponding author Marilyn A. Nippold, Communication Disorders and Sciences Program, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA Email: nippold@uoregon.edu

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

Nippold and W ard-Lonergan

239

knowledge of the topic, perspective-taking, the ability to weigh both sides of an issue, and the use of literate language, including complex syntax to express ones ideas efficiently (Crowhurst, 1980a, 1980b; McCann, 1989; Knudson, 1992; Riley and Reedy, 2005). British philosopher Stephen Toulmin (1958) has written extensively on the nature of argumentation. In his model, an effective argument includes the presentation of claims that are carefully supported by evidence, the recognition of opposing points of view, their appropriate rebuttal, and a conclusion drawn logically from the foregoing information, allowing it to withstand criticism (Taylor, 1971). Thus, an essential component of effective argumentation is the ability to reason with words (Boyd, 1995). This may occur through the use of analogies. For example, Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the USA, used the analogy, A house divided against itself cannot stand (Taylor, 1971: 78), urging Americans to resolve the issue of slavery, claiming that it was destroying the country. Lincolns argument was effective because it compared the nation and its people to a house in which the occupants held conflicting and unyielding beliefs. In todays schools, as greater emphasis is placed on accountability, students are expected to demonstrate competence in argumentative writing, beginning in the primary grades and continuing through high school. In Oregon, for example, middle-school students (grades 68) are asked to write argumentative essays on controversies that interest them. Their essays then are evaluated using many of Toulmins (1958) criteria:
Include a well-defined thesis that makes a clear and knowledgeable judgment or appeal; present detailed evidence, examples, and reasoning to support arguments, differentiating between facts and opinions; provide details, reasons, and examples, arranging them effectively by anticipating and answering reader concerns and counter-arguments. (Oregon Department of Education, 2009: EL.08.WR.27).

Unfortunately, many of these features are often absent from the argumentative essays of schoolage children and adolescents (McCann, 1989). For example, previous research has shown that middle-school students those who span the developmental stage between late childhood and early adolescence show wide individual differences in their argumentative writing skills (Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, and Fanning, 2005). Although some middle-school students write effective essays in which they consider both sides of an issue and offer multiple arguments, others are unable to move beyond a simple one-sided perspective, displaying a limited ability to recognize and respond to opposing points of view. Moreover, students with learning disabilities (LD) and those who are low academic achievers (LA) often perform poorly on argumentative writing tasks, producing essays that are disorganized, illogical, and fail to acknowledge and to address different perspectives (Wong, Butler, Ficzere, and Kuperis, 1996). The ability to mentally manage two opposing viewpoints is particularly challenging because it requires advanced, higher-order cognitive skills (Riley and Reedy, 2005). Nevertheless, among typically-developing youth, performance gradually improves during adolescence and young adulthood as writers incorporate diverse points of view into their essays, produce a greater number of arguments, and employ sentences that are syntactically more complex, as measured by Mean Length of Utterance in Words (MLU-W; Nippold et al., 2005). The present study was designed to investigate the variability that characterizes the argumentative essays of middle-school students. Given the importance of verbal reasoning for argumentation (Toulmin, 1958; Taylor, 1971; Boyd, 1995), the study explored the relationship between argumentative writing and verbal analogical reasoning in pre-adolescents with typical language development. The individual differences that have been observed in argumentative writing during this developmental stage (Nippold et al., 2005) suggest that pre-adolescents with stronger verbal reasoning skills

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

240

Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3)

might produce superior essays compared to their peers with weaker reasoning skills. Such a result could shed light on critical cognitive and linguistic developments in pre-adolescents. Verbal reasoning was of interest also because it is frequently called upon in daily life experiences, including learning in the classroom, where analogies are often used to explain complex phenomena (Sternberg, 1977, 1982). For example, middle-school students who are learning about hypertension must grasp their teachers analogy that, High blood pressure is like having high pressure in a pipe. It damages the pipe but you often dont see a problem until it bursts (Altoona List of Medical Analogies, 2009). In turn, students themselves may use analogies when they are arguing a point during a debate (e.g. Using less paper at school will save trees, just as using less heat at home will save natural gas). When analogical reasoning is formally evaluated, problems often take the form of a proportion: A is to B as C is to D. Generally, the D term is omitted, and the learner must generate (or select) an item that goes with C in the same way that B goes with A (e.g. big is to little as day is to night) (e.g. Sternberg and Rifkin, 1979; Sternberg and Nigro, 1980; Nippold and Sullivan, 1987). Successful performance on this type of task requires knowledge of relevant vocabulary and an understanding of the relationships between the pairs of terms. Studies have shown that performance on analogy tasks gradually improves during childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood; that it is subject to wide individual differences within age groups; and that it is predictive of intellectual capacity and academic achievement in children, adolescents, and adults (Sternberg, 1982; Nippold, 2007). Thus, it was expected that an investigation designed to examine the relationship between analogical reasoning and argumentation would be informative.

II Method 1 Participants
The participants were 80 students (mean age = 11;10; range = 10;613;5) who were attending an elementary or middle-school (Grade 5 or 6) in Oregon or California. According to their teachers, all students were considered to be typical achievers who spoke Standard American English as their primary language. None were receiving speechlanguage or special education services. All parents or guardians had been informed in writing of the purpose of the study and the nature of the tasks their child would be asked to perform. If any parents or guardians objected to the study, their child was not asked to participate. When describing the project to the students, the examiners indicated that it was voluntary and not a requirement. All students who participated had signed a consent form indicating their own willingness to perform the activities.

2 Procedures
The students were asked to write an argumentative essay on a controversial topic and to complete a verbal analogy task that examined their ability to reason with words. All testing took place in their classrooms during a single session of about 50 minutes. a Argumentative writing task: The argumentative writing task was identical to one that had been employed in a previous investigation where it has been described in detail (Nippold et al., 2005: 12829). The topic of the essay was, Should animals be trained to perform in circuses? Students were asked to explain their beliefs about this controversy, to offer good reasons for their views, and to use their best writing style. Each student was provided with a test booklet that contained several

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

Nippold and W ard-Lonergan

241

pages of lined paper on which to write the essay. To add interest to the task, the booklet also contained photos of elephants, tigers, leopards, dogs, and clowns performing in a circus. To introduce the task, the examiner referred to the circus photos and read aloud an introductory statement as the students followed along in their booklets. The statement was as follows:
People have different views on animals performing in circuses. For example, some people think it is a great idea because it provides lots of entertainment for the public. Also, it gives parents and children something to do together, and the people who train the animals can make some money. However, other people think having animals in circuses is a bad idea because the animals are often locked in small cages and are not fed well. They also believe it is cruel to force a dog, tiger, or elephant to perform certain tricks that might be dangerous.

Hence, the introduction presented several different arguments on each side of the controversy in an effort to encourage students to consider multiple points of view. However, it did not explicitly instruct the students to include different perspectives in their essays in an effort to avoid teaching them how to create a good argument. Rather, the study was designed to examine how they would perform when simply provided with the model. After presenting the above statement, the examiner continued as follows:
I am interested in learning what you think about this controversy, and whether or not you think circuses with trained animals should be allowed to perform for the public. I would like you to spend the next 20 minutes writing an essay. Tell me exactly what you think about the controversy. Give me lots of good reasons for your opinion.

After the students had worked on their essays for 15 minutes, the examiner announced that they had five minutes remaining. Upon reaching the 20-minute time limit, the examiner asked them to complete the sentence they were currently writing and then to put down their pencils or pens. The examiner then collected all essays. Each hand-written essay was transcribed verbatim and entered into the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts software program (Miller and Chapman, 2002), which automatically calculated MLU-W. Increases in MLU-W are associated with greater syntactic maturity in argumentative writing (Nippold et al., 2005). After the essays were printed, they were analysed for two additional factors. One factor was the Total Number of Reasons, which consisted of the number of different arguments or points that the writer raised in favor of or against the circus controversy. This factor was examined because the ability to produce multiple reasons in an argumentative essay reflects greater knowledge of the topic and awareness of its complexity (Nippold et al., 2005). Each essay was also examined for the writers attitude, which was classified as either Conditional or Absolute. A conditional attitude expressed the belief that different points of view were possible and should be considered. In contrast, an absolute attitude reflected the belief that only one perspective was possible, i.e. that a person was either in favor of the controversy or against it. This factor was examined because a flexible attitude is associated with greater maturity than a rigid one; in other words, as students develop during adolescence and early adulthood, they are more likely to consider different points of view in their essays (Nippold et al., 2005). This factor was also of interest because the ability to consider multiple points of view is an essential component of effective argumentation (Toulmin, 1958; Taylor, 1971). Each investigator scored one-half of the essays for Total Number of Reasons and then for the writers Attitude, i.e. Absolute or Conditional. To determine Total Number of Reasons, the

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

242

Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3)

investigator read through the essay and made a list of all points that were in favor of or against the circus. Each point had to be unique; if the same point was expressed in different ways (e.g. circus elephants are sad; the elephants seem unhappy), it was counted only once. If all points were favorable towards the circus (e.g. the animals get lots of exercise; they eat good food; they are out of danger) or if all points were against it (e.g. the tigers could get burned; elephants might attack the crowd; the lions dont get to hunt), the writers attitude was classified as Absolute. However, if the essay contained a mix of positive and negative comments (e.g. dogs were meant to do tricks; the training makes them stronger; they enjoy performing; on the other hand, some dogs get lonely for their families), the writers attitude was classified as Conditional. After scoring a set of essays, the investigators switched sets and double-checked each others scoring. The initial agreement level exceeded 90%. All disagreements were resolved through discussion, bringing the final agreement level to 100%. bVerbal analogy task: Verbal analogical reasoning was assessed using a set of 20 proportional analogy problems from the LorgeThorndike Intelligence Tests, Levels 4 and 5 (Lorge and Thorndike, 1957). Each student was given a booklet that contained the set of problems. Each problem expressed the relationship A is to B as C is to D. However, the D term was omitted, making the analogy incomplete. The student was asked to select a term from a set of five answer choices that best completed the analogy. As an example, one of the problems on the experimental task was as follows:
Biology is to microscope as astronomy is to: A) telescope B) binoculars C) lens D) stratosphere E) heavens.

To introduce the analogy task, the examiner presented two practice problems that were of the same style as the experimental problems but contained simpler vocabulary, making the correct answers fairly obvious. The examiner read each practice problem and its five answer choices aloud and asked the students, as a group, to call out the correct choice. Upon hearing that choice, the examiner confirmed that is was correct. Twenty points could be earned on the task, which was handscored using an answer key.

III Results
To examine the relationships between Verbal Analogical Reasoning and the factors of interest on Argumentative Writing (i.e. Total Number of Reasons and Mean Length of Utterance-Words), Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated using each participants raw scores on each of those measures. The results indicated that Verbal Analogical Reasoning was significantly correlated with Total Number of Reasons (r = .35, p = .0015) but not with MLU-W (r = .17, p = .1331). In analysing the reasons that were offered when students expressed their views on the controversy of animals being trained to perform in circuses, it was noted that 44% of the sample (n = 35) considered both sides of the issue. In contrast, 56% considered only one side, absolutely yes or absolutely no. These subgroups, which were labeled Conditional and Absolute, respectively, were then compared on the other factors of interest. The findings, reported in Table 1, indicated that the Conditional subgroup outperformed the Absolute subgroup on Verbal Analogical Reasoning (t = 2.96, p = .0041, d = .64), Total Number of Reasons (t = 2.23, p = .0287, d = .49), and MLU-W (t = 2.39, p = .0190, d = .52). All effect sizes were medium (Cohen, 1988). In addition, Appendix 1 contains excerpts from students essays illustrating the different attitudes: conditional, absolutely yes, and absolutely no. The examples of argumentative essays contained in Appendix 1 illustrate the wide individual differences that can occur in the

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

Nippold and W ard-Lonergan

Table 1 Performance of the subgroups on the factors of interest Conditional subgroup (n = 35)

243

Absolute subgroup (n = 45)

Verbal Analogical Reasoning* (20 points possible): M 8.86 7.44 SD 2.10 2.13 Range 515 312 Total Number of Reasons:* M 8.57 6.84 SD 4.05 2.88 Range 320 214 Mean Length of Utterance-Words:* M 12.23 10.84 SD 2.63 2.53 Range 8.0019.25 5.5016.11
Note: * = statistically significant difference (p < .05)

performance of pre-adolescents. Writer 1, an 11-year-old girl in the Conditional subgroup, begins her essay with the sentence I think that it is usually OK for people to use animals in the circus, indicating that she is generally positive towards the circus but understands some of the complicating factors. She then provides a long list of reasons to support her view (e.g. animals get exercise, love, food, attention, housing, are challenged, keep busy, learn tricks) before mentioning some reasons why the circus might be negative (e.g. animals may be shy, not fed properly, or put in dangerous situations). She concludes her essay by restating her original position and summarizing the positive aspects of the circus. This writer considers both sides of this controversial issue and defends her own view thoughtfully, with multiple points and careful reasoning. Writer 2, a 12-year-old boy in the Absolute subgroup, also expresses a favorable view of the circus but, unlike Writer 1, he lists only positive features of it (e.g. children can be entertained, families can spend time together, animals are carefully trained, animals are safe, its fun to see them perform), basing his view on his own trips to the circus when he was younger. There is no indication in his essay that he believes that any problems exist with the circus, thereby expressing a singular perspective. Nevertheless, he is forthright in his writing, and supports his beliefs through his own observations and experiences, offering a thoughtful but one-sided argument. Writer 3, a 12-year-old girl, is also in the Absolute subgroup but, unlike Writer 2, she expresses a uniformly negative view of the circus. Indeed, she begins her essay with the statement, Im a very big animal lover, and attempts to convince the reader to consider the emotional needs of the animals (e.g. Think how you would feel if someone stood on your back). In addition, she addresses the issues introduced by the examiner concerning the employment and entertainment opportunities that the circus offers, but she counters that circus workers could find other jobs, and that audience members have other options for having fun. Although this writer addresses multiple issues surrounding the controversy, she seems unwilling to consider the possibility of any positive aspects of the circus. Nevertheless, she states her beliefs clearly and supports them with original ideas. All three writers show individual strengths in their essays. However, only Writer 1 offered reasons both for and against the circus controversy, displaying greater maturity in her argumentative writing ability (Nippold et al., 2005) and better recognition of factors that are needed to produce a convincing argument (Toulmin, 1958).

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

244

Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3)

IV Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between argumentative writing and verbal reasoning in pre-adolescents. Because verbal reasoning is an important component of argumentative writing (Taylor, 1971; Boyd, 1995), it was predicted that children with stronger reasoning skills would produce higher quality essays as compared to their peers with weaker reasoning skills. Correlation coefficients confirmed an association between verbal reasoning as tested by a proportional analogy task, and argumentative writing as measured by the total number of different reasons (both for and against the controversy) offered in an essay. This is consistent with research indicating that verbal analogical reasoning is associated with intellectual capacity and academic achievement in youth (Otis and Lennon, 1967; Sternberg, 1982; Sternberg and Downing, 1982). It also helps to explain some of the individual differences that occur in the quality of pre-adolescents argumentative essays, reported previously (Nippold et al., 2005). Moreover, when the students were divided into subgroups based on the attitudes they expressed in their essays Conditional or Absolute statistically significant differences emerged favoring the Conditional subgroup on all factors of interest: Verbal Analogical Reasoning, Total Number of Reasons, and MLU-W. This indicated that students with a more flexible attitude (those who considered both sides of the issue) outperformed their more rigid peers (those who considered only one side of the issue) on measures of logical thinking, argumentation, and syntactic complexity, supporting an association between cognition, language development, and academic achievement. Argumentative writing is an important topic to address in schools today, not only because it is frequently the focus of formal state-mandated assessments, but also because it has practical value for students as they become independent adults. For example, the ability to write an effective argumentative essay can potentially empower an individual, group, or community to secure certain benefits for themselves and others such as safer driving conditions on city streets; stronger environmental protection laws affecting air, water, and land; employee rights and privileges; and affordable child care for working parents. Nevertheless, as shown in this study, many pre-adolescents struggle with argumentative writing tasks, producing one-sided pieces with statements that fail to consider different points of view, i.e. essays that may be less effective in convincing others. Moreover, previous research (Wong et al., 1996) has shown that students with learning disabilities and poor academic achievement struggle with argumentative writing tasks, particularly in their ability to acknowledge and to address alternative points of view. The essays contained in Appendix 1 provide examples of how writers express different attitudes (conditional, absolute) and whether or not they consider multiple perspectives. Given the importance of recognizing and responding to diverse points of view, teachers and speechlanguage pathologists (SLPs) who work with students with learning disabilities or low academic achievement may wish to employ argumentative writings tasks such as the circus controversy and to examine students essays for these features. By analysing students essays in this way, teachers and SLPs can gain insight into areas of strength as well as areas that may be targeted for classroom instruction with typically developing students or with students receiving speech and language intervention who have been diagnosed with language-based learning disabilities or weak language skills. Given the relationship between argumentative writing and verbal reasoning, it also might be informative to administer tasks such as Verbal Analogical Reasoning to students who struggle to produce essays that consider the multi-faceted nature of controversies. Students who score significantly below their classmates on this task may require assistance in learning how to acknowledge and address different points of view. When working with pre-adolescents, it is necessary to engage students in structured activities that are dynamic, motivating, and relevant to their daily lives (Montgomery and Hayes, 2005). To

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

Nippold and W ard-Lonergan

245

achieve meaningful growth, it is suggested that students receive frequent lessons in argumentative writing, focusing on topics that are genuinely important to them. Cell-phone usage, for example, might be an appropriate topic, given that approximately 75% of middle-school students own cell phones (Wirefly Cell Phone Resources, 2009). Conflicts regarding cell phones often arise. Recently, a sixth grade teacher reported that several of her students were socializing at lunch one day when one of the girls received a cell-phone call from another friend, whereupon she launched into a lengthy conversation with the caller, leaving her friends in an awkward silence. A scenario such as this could serve as a starting point for a lively discussion that could stimulate the writing of sophisticated essays that state an opinion, offer multiple reasons, consider different points of view, and conclude by reflecting on all factors that have been presented by weighing the pros and cons of each position in a systematic fashion. When working with pre-adolescents on writing tasks, it is important to provide a cooperative learning environment that fosters student interaction (Montgomery and Hayes, 2005). To begin, the teacher or SLP could describe the scenario above to the class before posing the following question: Should a person accept a cell phone call when in the midst of a conversation with a group of friends? To help the students consider both sides of the issue, a graphic organizer could be used where specific reasons are to be listed under the categories yes and no through a brainstorming activity. In this context, everyone regardless of their original position is asked to contribute at least one reason for each side of the argument. Following this, the group can assign weights or values to each point and then decide objectively, by summing the totals, which position is stronger. Given the link between successful argumentative writing and analogical reasoning, activities that facilitate students ability to judge the logical value of arguments might also prove helpful. For example, they could be asked to decide if the following analogy, offered to support the unrestricted use of cell phones, is logical: Taking away a girls cell phone is like taking away her friends. To assist the students in making a decision, they could be asked to offer reasons for their views. It also may be helpful to ask them if the analogy used in the argument, arranged into a proportional problem (cell phone : friends :: no cell phone : no friends), makes sense. Following these types of group activities, students could be asked to write their own argumentative essays on this topic by following an outline such as the following:
My opinion on this issue is X I believe this because (list as many reasons as possible) On the other hand, other people believe Y (the opposing view) They believe this because (list as many reasons as possible) Nevertheless, position X is stronger because In conclusion, after considering both sides of the issue, I believe

As students engage in this exercise, some may change their minds and decide to endorse the position that they originally had opposed. This should be encouraged because it suggests they are thinking carefully about the issues, basing their opinions on the evidence that has emerged, and acquiring a more balanced view of the controversy. As students make progress in argumentative writing, additional topics can be raised for debate. To ensure that the task is meaningful, students can be asked to describe controversies that have arisen during their own academic and social activities. It is helpful also if students can direct their essays to real people such as the school principal, football coach, or others who make decisions directly affecting them. Topics might include, for example, if the school should have a dress code, if students should be permitted to bring pets to school, if junk food should be banned from the

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

246

Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3)

cafeteria, and if athletes should be permitted to postpone assignments because of team competitions. Throughout these activities, teachers and SLPs can model fairness, objectivity, respect for diverse points of view, the need to address counterarguments, and the necessity of drawing conclusions based on reasoned evidence rather than solely on emotions. In conclusion, this study has emphasized the relationship between verbal analogical reasoning and argumentative writing in pre-adolescents, indicating that students who excel in verbal reasoning are more likely to produce argumentative essays that reflect an appreciation of the complexities and multifaceted nature of controversial topics. When teachers and SLPs collaborate to encourage students to understand different points of view, to think logically, and to use complex language to express themselves in spoken and written communication, all students can benefit, particularly when effective argumentation is valued in the classroom. As described earlier, Toulmins (1958) classic model of argumentation, which continues to influence contemporary educational standards and practices, offers insight into the essential features of this valuable genre. Acknowledgements The authors express appreciation to the participants in this study, their parents and guardians, and to the classroom teachers and administrators who assisted with the project. References
Altoona List of Medical Analogies (2009) Available online at http://www.altoonafp.org/analogies.htm (January 2010). Boyd R (1995) Teaching writing with logic. College Teaching 43: 5356. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crowhurst M (1980a) Syntactic complexity and teachers quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English 14(3): 22331. Crowhurst M (1980b) Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education 5(1): 613. Knudson RE (1992) The development of written argumentation: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study Journal 22(3): 16784. Lorge I and Thorndike RL (1957) LorgeThorndike Intelligence Tests. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. McCann TM (1989) Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English 23(1): 6276. Miller JF and Chapman RS (2002) Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT). Version 7.0 [Computer software]. Madison, WI: Language Analysis Laboratory, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin. Montgomery JK and Hayes LL (2005) Literacy transition strategies for upper elementary students with language-learning disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly 26(2): 8593. Nippold MA (2007) Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults. 3rd edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Nippold MA and Sullivan MP (1987) Verbal and perceptual analogical reasoning and proportional metaphor comprehension in young children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30: 36776. Nippold MA, Ward-Lonergan JM, and Fanning JL (2005) Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 36: 12538. Oregon Department of Education (2009) Available online at http://www.ode.state.or.us (January 2010). Otis AS and Lennon RT (1967) OtisLennon Mental Ability Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Riley J and Reedy D (2005) Developing young childrens thinking through learning to write argument. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 5(1): 2951.

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

Nippold and W ard-Lonergan

247

Sternberg RJ (1977) Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sternberg RJ (1982) Reasoning, problem solving, and intelligence. In: Sternberg RJ (ed.) Handbook of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225307. Sternberg RJ and Downing CJ (1982) The development of higher-order reasoning in adolescents. Child Development 51: 2738. Sternberg RJ and Nigro G (1980) Developmental patterns in the solution of verbal analogies. Child Development 51: 2738. Sternberg RJ and Rifkin B (1979) The development of analogical reasoning processes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 27: 195232. Taylor VL (1971) The art of argument. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. London: Cambridge University Press. Wirefly Cell Phone Resources (2009) Available online at http://www.wirefly.com/resources/etiquette/kids. html (January 2010). Wong BYL, Butler DL, Ficzere SA, and Kuperis S (1996) Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities 29: 197212.

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013

248

Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3)

Appendix 1 Examples of students essays that express different attitudes

Writer 1: Girl, age 11;2 Attitude: Conditional I think that it is usually OK for people to use animals in the circus. The animals get plenty of exercise. And they dont usually get very bored because they are always being taught tricks. All of the learning they experience keeps them busy and challenges them, which is very good for them. Many animals, like dogs, need lots of playtime, which they are getting. However, it wouldnt be good to use animals that dont like travelling or big crowds, such as geckos. I also think that making tigers jump through hoops that are on fire is a very cruel thing to do. The tigers could be lit on fire themselves! The only circuses that should be illegal are the ones that make their animals do cruel tricks, underfeed their animals, or house them improperly. Overall, I think that circuses are OK and good for the animals. They provide the animals with recreation, love, attention, food, housing, and challenges. The animals learn to do much of the same tricks that they would if they were a well cared for pet. Writer 2: Boy, age 12;0 Attitude: Absolutely yes I think its a good idea to have animals perform in circuses. Because its mostly, I think, for the children to watch animals do amazing tricks and for entertainment. Its also a place to have families do something together. There wouldnt be any problems with the animals hurting anything because they are specially trained by animal trainers. All they do is perform for the audience. They wouldnt go into the stands and try to injure anybody. When I was little, I had gone to a circus to watch animals do incredible tricks. And everything went fine. Circuses arent places where animals try to jump at you and hurt you. Its a place to have some fun. There is no danger of having animals perform in front of people for entertainment. Writer 3: Girl, age 12;2 Attitude: Absolutely no Im a very big animal lover. I love all animals. I have a cat and a dog. I think it is a horrible idea to put animals in the circus that are meant to live in the wild in their own habitat. As for entertainment for the public, they dont need any entertainment from tigers and bears. I think the people who train the animals are well qualified to find a better job to earn money. In this world, there are so many things that a family can do than watch elephants trot around with people in leotards stand on their backs and do flips. Think how you would feel if someone stood on your back. Families could go to the park, a movie, a theme park, camping, fishing, or even lie around and play cards. There are so many games you could play for fun. With my family, we sit at night during the summer and play Sorry. In about five minutes in the game we are having a ball. A lot more fun than you would at a circus.

Downloaded from clt.sagepub.com by guest on April 17, 2013