Teaching Argumentation - Julia A. Simms What Principals Need to Know

Скачать книгу

question an author’s or speaker’s assumptions and premises and assess the veracity of claims and the soundness of reasoning. . . . Students cite specific evidence when offering an oral or written interpretation of a text. They use relevant evidence when supporting their own points in writing and speaking, making their reasoning clear to the reader or listener, and they constructively evaluate others’ use of evidence. (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 7)

      In our analysis, we first identified those CCSS that relate to argumentation. In addition to the college and career readiness standards quoted previously, a number of English language arts (ELA) content standards and one standard for mathematical practice address argumentation. Second, we examined each standard to identify the components of argumentation within it. For example, in the previous quote (page 3) from the college and career readiness standards, students are expected to construct effective arguments, convey intricate or multifaceted information, comprehend arguments, critique arguments, understand precisely what an author or speaker is saying, question an author or speaker’s assumptions, and so on. After identifying these components, we grouped them into thirteen overarching argumentation skills, each of which is robust enough to be the subject of direct instruction and student practice. These thirteen overarching skills are listed and described in table I.1.

Distinguishing fact from opinion involves discriminating between statements that are observably true and statements that express personal beliefs.
Presenting and supporting claims involves generating an assertion and providing evidence to back it up.
Explaining the relationship between claims, grounds, and backing involves clarifying exactly how a piece of evidence supports a claim.
Organizing an argument involves arranging claims, grounds, and backing in a logical order.
Citing textual evidence involves using specific quotations or information from a text to support a claim.
Distinguishing a claim from alternate or opposing claims involves using precise language to refine the meaning of a claim or to make it more specific.
Making inductive inferences involves forming reasonable guesses based on observations and background knowledge.
Distinguishing connotation from denotation involves recognizing different implications or nuances among words with similar definitions (such as aroma and stench).
Evaluating persuasive rhetoric involves determining a writer or speaker’s motive based on connotation, emphasis, tone, and figurative language, as well as judging whether these elements were used to mislead.
Identifying errors in reasoning involves analyzing a claim or evidence to decide whether it is logical.
Identifying insufficient or irrelevant evidence involves analyzing evidence to decide whether it adequately supports a claim.
Perspective taking involves recognizing the reasoning behind various (and sometimes conflicting) viewpoints on an issue.
Communicating responsibly involves taking the initiative to create and maintain a positive interaction through constructive words, actions, and behaviors.

      Table I.2 (pages 5–13) shows the argumentation-related CCSS we identified and the overarching skill(s) associated with each standard.

      Table I.2: Argumentation-Related Standards and Associated Overarching Skills

      In table I.2 (page 5), we use the dot notation system to identify standards from the CCSS. In ELA, dot notation indicates a standard using letters for its strand (Reading Literary Text [RL], Reading Informational Text [RI], Writing [W], Speaking and Listening [SL], or Language [L]), a number for its grade level (K–12), and a number for the specific standard to which it refers. For example, consider the notation W.3.1. The letter W indicates Writing, the number 3 indicates grade 3, and the number 1 indicates the first standard in the strand. Therefore, the notation refers to the first standard in the third-grade Writing strand. The mathematical practice standard related to argumentation referenced in table I.2 is denoted by Practice. MP3 (that is, the third standard for mathematical practice). Since the college and career readiness standards are not grade specific, they are not included in table I.2, although they were included in our analysis.

      As illustrated by table I.2, the concept of argumentation spirals and builds through grades K–12.Some standards involve only one skill while others involve several. Furthermore, the skills associated with each standard develop from grade to grade, becoming more complex as students advance. For example, the skill of presenting and supporting claims looks different at each grade level. Kindergartners are expected to present opinions without any evidence, whereas first graders must give reasons—basic evidence—to support their claims. By third grade, students are expected to organize claims and evidence using linking words and phrases such as because or for example.

      While we acknowledge that the process of identifying overarching argumentation skills is not an exact science, we strove to identify those argumentation skills from the CCSS that could be directly taught to students and practiced through games and activities in the classroom. This book presents strategies for teaching each argumentation skill and includes games that teachers can use to reinforce and help students practice each skill.

      As shown previously, each of the skills in table I.1 (page 4) come directly from the CCSS, and teachers can use the games in this book to help students practice those skills. Note, however, that the games are designed for practicing

Скачать книгу