This document summarizes research on teaching argumentative skills to middle school students. It begins by defining argumentation and distinguishing it from persuasion. It then examines two studies: 1) A quasi-experimental study that looked at engaging 8th graders in argumentative discourse activities and found improvements in individual arguments and peer discussions. 2) A case study of a 7th grade class that engaged in a debate project on capital punishment, which also found gains in student argument skills. The document provides an overview of key components of arguments like claims, evidence, warrants, rebuttals, and discusses challenges adolescents face with argumentation. It concludes that structured activities focused on developing these skills can enhance students' abilities to construct and engage in arguments.

1. Social and Cognitive Influences in
Teaching Argumentative Texts
Mary Ann Reilly

2. Tasks
1. Define argumentive discourse and writing,
clarifying differences btw argument and
persuasion.
2. Examine quasi-experimental research related
to argumentive discourse with 8th graders.
3. Examine case study of teaching argumentive
writing in 7th grade.

3. Thinking and Middle Schoolers
• "[A]bove all else... middle grades schools must
be about helping all students learn to use
their minds well" (p. 11), and
• "The main purpose of middle grades
education is to promote young adolescents'
intellectual development." (p. 10)
From: Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century.
New York: Teachers College Press.

4. Why Argument?
• Constructing arguments (Voss & Wiley, 1997;
Wiley & Voss, 1999; Zohar & Nemet, 2002)
and engaging in argumentive discussion
(Mason, 1998, 2001) enhance conceptual
understanding of subject matter in school-
age children, as well as college students.
• From Kuhn & Udell, 2003.

5. Persuasion and Argument
1. Same Goals: To convince, to defend, to
question
2. Different Methods:
• Persuasion: Built on logos, pathos, and/or
ethos
• Argument: Built on logical models that include
claims, evidence, warrants, backing, &
anticipated objections and rebuttal

6. Goals of Argument
• According to Walton (1989), skilled
argumentation has two goals.
1. Secure commitments from the opponent that
can be used to support one's own argument.
2. Undermine the opponent's position by
identifying and challenging weaknesses in his
or her argument.

7. Parts of an Argument
(Toulmin Method)
1. Claim: General statement, assertion upon which the argument is
based
2. Reasons: Why does a writer believe the claim s/he makes? The
reasons a writer gives are the first line of development of any
argument.
3. Evidence: Facts, examples, statistics, expert testimony, among
others--to back up our reasons
4. Warrants: Explains how the evidence supports the claim
5. Anticipated Objections & Rebuttals: What might others object too
and how does the author rebut those objections? (*Most often
not attended to by adolescents)
6. Drawing Conclusions: Statement about the effectiveness of the
argument by reader

8. Claims
• advertisements make unfounded claims
• the NJASK prompt for persuasive writing is
based on making unfounded claims
• Claims must be substantiated by...

9. …Evidence
• a claim (thesis) arises from a question which in
turn rises from the examination of
information or data of some kind

10. Steps to Establish Evidence
1. examine data
2. ask questions based on data
3. re-examine data
4. attempt to answer your questions
5. data that supports your answers = evidence

11. Evidence must be
both useful and
verifiable.

12. Warrants
• The explanations of why the data we produce
support the claims we make are called
warrants;
• They can be common sense rules that are
generally accepted as true, laws, scientific
principles or studies, and/or thoughtfully
argued definitions.

13. Example: warrants establish the uniqueness of
fingerprints as useful evidence.

14. Backing
• since warrants
can be
challenged,
backing is the
support for
warrants
(studying the
development of
beetles in corpses
to establish time
of death -- a
warrant)

15. • when arguments of judgment are challenged,
warrants need extensive backing via extended
definitions of abstract ideas (what is
courageous action?)

16. Qualifications and Counter-Arguments
• arguments deal with probabilities (likely,
probably, almost certainly) and must be
qualified.
• statistical evidence is used in medical,
agricultural, educational, and social sciences
to determine the probability of truth in a
claim

17. Challenges for Adolescents Regarding
Argument
• Adolescents are:
1. unlikely to construct two-sided arguments
2. to distinguish evidence and explanation in
support of their claims
(Kuhn & Udell, 2003)

18. Developing Argumentative Discourse
• Academically at-risk middle-school students engage in a ten-week
debate activity focused on the topic of capital punishment. Based
on their initial pro v. con opinions, students are assigned to a 4-6
person team who share their opinion and with whom they work
until near the end of the project.
• The social goal that unites and energizes the team is preparation for
a final "show-down" debate activity against a team holding the
opposing opinion.
• Assessments preceding and following the activity are based on
– a student's individual argument in support of a pro or con opinion, for
both the capital punishment topic and a new, transfer topic,
– a sample of argumentive discourse between two students holding
opposing opinions, again on both the capital punishment topic and a
new topic. Initial results indicate significant progress in the quality of
both individual argument and argumentive discourse following the
activity.

19. Developing Argumentative Discourse
• 34 academically at-risk eighth-grade students attending
two low-performing, inner-city public middle schools in
New York City.
• Students were organized into Pro and Con teams concerned
capital punishment based on student survey results.
Experimental & Control group.
• Pre/Post Assessment designed to examine sophistication of
argument (single to dual, reduction in expository response )
• Each team worked with an adult for two 90-minute lessons
per a week for 8 weeks building argumentative discourse
skills that are displayed during debate/showdown. Control
group worked w/ adult for 7 of the 16 sessions.

20. Pair Teams: Pro and Con of a Claim
1. Generating Reasons
2. Supporting Reasons with Evidence
3. Evaluating Reasons
4. Developing Reasons into an Argument
5. Examining and Evaluating Opposing Side’s Reasons
6. Generating Counterarguments to Others’ Reasons
7. Generating Rebuttal to Others’ Reasons
8. Contemplating Mixed Evidence
9. Contemplating & Evaluating Two Evidence (Rehearsal)
10. Showdown

21. Results
• Researchers coded students utterances during
showdown as
– simple disagreement (with what the partner has
said),
– disagreement accompanied by an alternate
argument, and
– disagreement accompanied by a critique of the
partner's utterance.
• Increased production in all categories.

22. Example of Pre/Post
• Initial assessment: If someone did something wrong, they should be
subject to capital punishment. (Why is that?) Because for instance if
they kill someone, maybe the same thing is due to them. (Any other
reason?) Well, I feel that people should pay if they did something
wrong.
• Final assessment: If someone goes out and kills another person
they should receive a justified punishment, an equal punishment.
So that if they killed someone then they should receive the same
thing. But I can also see how other people can have a different
opinion because not everyone thinks the same and they may feel
that it's wrong to kill another person, that people deserve a second
chance. But personally I feel that if you have enough nerve to go
out and kill somebody else, well then you just deserve to be killed
as well. (Okay, anything else?) Well, one of the reasons why I have
this opinion is that I've seen where facts have shown that capital
punishment has reduced crime. And I always think that less crime
will make a better life for everyone.

23. • “argument skills develop and that engagement
in an argumentive discourse activity enhances
that development (Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kuhn
et al., 1997). …such advancement can be
observed not only in the arguments that an
individual constructs in support of a claim but
also in the quality of argumentive discourse
generated in peer dialogues” (Kuhn & Udell, p.
1255).

24. Developing Demands, Orally Arguing, & Listening to Argument
as per CCSS
•SL.6.3. Delineate a •SL.7.3. Delineate a SL.8.3. Delineate a
speaker’s argument and speaker’s argument and speaker’s argument and
specific claims, specific claims, evaluating specific claims, evaluating
distinguishing claims that the soundness of the the soundness of the
are supported by reasons reasoning and the reasoning and relevance
and evidence from claims relevance and sufficiency of and sufficiency of the
that are not. the evidence. evidence and identifying
•SL.6.4. Present claims and •SL.7.4. Present claims and when irrelevant evidence is
findings, sequencing ideas findings, emphasizing introduced.
logically and using pertinent salient points in a focused, SL.8.4. Present claims and
descriptions, facts, and coherent manner with findings, emphasizing
details to accentuate main pertinent descriptions, salient points in a focused,
ideas or themes; use facts, details, and coherent manner with
appropriate eye contact, examples; use appropriate relevant evidence, sound
adequate volume, and clear eye contact, adequate valid reasoning, and well-
pronunciation. volume, and clear chosen details; use
pronunciation. appropriate eye contact,
adequate volume, and clear
pronunciation.

25. Developing Demands in Writing Argument as per CCSS
•W.6.1. Write arguments to support •W.7.1. Write arguments to •W.8.1. Write arguments to
claims with clear reasons and support claims with clear reasons support claims with clear reasons
relevant evidence. and relevant evidence. and relevant evidence.
–Introduce claim(s) and organize –Introduce claim(s), acknowledge –Introduce claim(s), acknowledge
the reasons and evidence clearly. alternate or opposing claims, and and distinguish the claim(s) from
–Support claim(s) with clear reasons organize the reasons and evidence alternate or opposing claims, and
and relevant evidence, using logically. organize the reasons and evidence
credible sources and demonstrating –Support claim(s) with logical logically.
an understanding of the topic or reasoning and relevant evidence, –Support claim(s) with logical
text. using accurate, credible sources reasoning and relevant evidence,
–Use words, phrases, and clauses to and demonstrating an using accurate, credible sources
clarify the relationships among understanding of the topic or text. and demonstrating an
claim(s) and reasons. –Use words, phrases, and clauses to understanding of the topic or text.
–Establish and maintain a formal create cohesion and clarify the –Use words, phrases, and clauses to
style. relationships among claim(s), create cohesion and clarify the
–Provide a concluding statement or reasons, and evidence. relationships among claim(s),
section that follows from the –Establish and maintain a formal counterclaims, reasons, and
argument presented. style. evidence.
–Provide a concluding statement or –Establish and maintain a formal
section that follows from and style.
supports the argument presented. –Provide a concluding statement or
section that follows from and
supports the argument presented.

26. Developing Demands in Reading Argument as per CCSS
•RI.6.8. Trace and •RI.7.8. Trace and •RI.8.8. Delineate and
evaluate the argument evaluate the argument evaluate the argument
and specific claims in a and specific claims in a and specific claims in a
text, distinguishing text, assessing whether text, assessing whether
claims that are supported the reasoning is sound the reasoning is sound
by reasons and evidence and the evidence is and the evidence is
from claims that are not. relevant and sufficient to relevant and sufficient;
support the claims. recognize when
irrelevant evidence is
introduced.

27. What Types of Instruction Support the
Argumentative Thinking?
• Kuhn et al. (1997) and Lao and Kuhn (2002)
have shown that extended engagement in
argumentative discourse, in the absence of
any additional instruction, is a sufficient
condition for enhancement of the quality of
arguments produced by individuals following
discourse.

28. Nystrand & Graff (2001)
• “Argumentation, especially, is an arduous and dialogic
process of response to others, on the one hand, and
anticipation of response, on the other. Skilled writers
know how to peer over their shoulders, as it were,
while pushing on with their own ideas. The writer's
interlocutors hence play a key role in the ostensibly
private act of writing, contributing to its development
by elaborating different positions and by questioning
and disagreeing with ideas the writer proposes. Yet
these processes are often short-circuited when
knowledge is routinely treated, as it is in many
classrooms, as a given—fixed, and found in texts” (p.7).

29. Task 1
• Examine the transcript between the 7th grade
teacher and the student. (Handout)
• Based on the transcript, what do you think the
student is learning? What makes you say so?

30. Task #2 Examine the Teacher’s Instruction: What does
she believe will best guide student writing/thinking?
• I was telling you before that when you write . . . a solid paragraph, you
have a main idea here, and then you support it with details, . . . and the
more details you have, the stronger that topic sentence is gonna be.
Right? Okay. So here's my question to you: If you have your thesis and
your assertions chart filled out and you're writing an introduction, can you
do this? We will use this as a paragraph. Let's take . . . all the information
you have, and you're going to write a draft of your paper. In your
introduction, is it possible for you to — have your table top be your thesis
statement and assertions one, two, and three? Okay? So, in your
introduction, your thesis sentence is either going to be your, generally, it's
either the first or last sentence of a paragraph in your introduction. And, in
your introduction, you're also gonna state, just state your assertions. . . .
So essentially, your paper could be 5 paragraphs in length. It could be an
introduction, in which you state your assertions. It could be assertion one
and the details, assertion two and the details, assertion three and the
details, and a wrap-up, a conclusion. . . . now if you follow that
format, which I think is easy to follow. . . . [3/2/98, from Nystrand &
Graff, 2001 ]

31. Consider this question…
What happens to student learning when a
teacher’s comments and actions move them
towards closure rather than opening dialog?
Is completing the assignment more important
than learning?

32. Directions from teacher to students in
keeping a double entry notebook.
• [T]his is what things I personally thought about the
book, and you can say, "Oh, this book is awful—I don't
like it, I'm bored, I can't relate to the characters." You
are certainly free to say whatever you honestly feel
about the book, so just make sure you kind of back it
with why. Don't just say [it's not a good book]—that's
not enough. . . . I wrote, "Dear whoever-I-was-talking-
to, Things must have been awful, This is hard to
read, Awful for that boy to have run away. What do you
think he is hoping to find in the city? Is he going to
meet someone?" [1/27/98]

33. Intellectual Environment Matters
• The type of activities that happen in the classroom
influence how well students think. How the complex
demands of a large modern classroom configure
writing and reading activities can inhibit the
epistemology of argument.
• In the 9 weeks researchers observed (in blocks of two
55-minute classes back to back), not 1 of the total
4,950 minutes was given over to discussion in any
extended form (they defined discussion as the free
exchange of information among students and/or
between at least 3 students and the teacher that lasted
at least a half minute).

34. Summary
• “…the idea of writing as argument imply
changes not only in student products but also
in the overall teaching practices of
classrooms. A few changes in writing
instruction, while important, may not have the
desired results if the dominant epistemology
of the classroom derails the instructional goals
for writing” (Nystrand & Graff, 2001).

35. Recommended Next Steps
• During Fall-Winter 2012, develop a unit of
study appropriate for your grade level that:
1. Emphasizes thinking related to argument
2. Emphasizes argumentive discourse
3. Provides you and your students with scaffolded
approach to discussing and writing argumentive
text
4. Connects talking and writing with
reading/analyzing argumentive text
5. Is ready to implement for February, 2013

36. Works Cited
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-
153
Jackson, A., & Davis, G. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Kuhn, D. & Udell, V. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74( 5), 1245-1260.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and
Instruction, 15, 287-315.
Lao, J., & Kuhn, D. (2002). Cognitive engagement and attitude development. Cognitive Development, 17, 1203-
1217.
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school contexts: The role of oral and
written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359-389.
Mason, L. (2001). Introducing talk and writing for conceptual change: A classroom study. In L. Mason (Ed.),
Instructional practices for conceptual change in science domains. Learning and Instruction, 11, 305-329.
Nystrand, M. & Graff, N. (2001). Report in argument’s clothing. An ecological perspective on writing instruction
in a seventh-grade classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 101(4), 479-493.
Voss, J., & Wiley, J. (1997). Developing understanding while writing essays in history. International Journal of
Educational Research, 27, 255-265.
Walton, D. N. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169-184.
Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding
and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' know-edge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in
human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.