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

Скачать книгу

who are often underrepresented in politics, such as people of color, women, and young adults (Correa & Jeong, 2010; McCaughey & Ayers, 2003; Mossberger et al., 2007). This finding is particularly salient when one considers the importance of discussion within the democratic process: when people discuss political issues, they are more likely to take political action in elections and other political events (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995; Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005; Wyatt, Katz, & Kim, 2000).

      Although online debate may encourage individuals to participate in argumentation, it does not inherently prepare them to do so effectively. Internet discussions are notorious for eliciting heated, irrational, and even uncivil interactions (Papacharissi, 2004; Shils, 1992). As is similarly the case in offline discussions, individuals sometimes interpret challenges to their online claims as personal attacks, which can lead them to react defensively or even lash out at others. The tendency of users to take online arguments personally has been repeatedly satirized on humor websites such as Cracked.com (2010; Christina H, 2012) and xkcd (2008a; 2008b). Some have speculated that the option to post anonymously does not hold users accountable for rudeness or insensitivity in their comments (Hlavach & Freivogel, 2011; Kling, Lee, Teich, & Frankel, 1999). In fact, the prevalence of offensive and irrational comments in online forums has prompted some websites—such as Popular Science—to close their comment sections entirely (LaBarre, 2013).

      In addition to being unsavory, the sometimes hostile nature of online debate may have implications for the democratic process. Bill Reader (2012) pointed out that “with online forums, the gatekeeping has largely disappeared—anybody can post a comment in any manner and on any topic, often without any prescreening by editors” (p. 496). In some ways, the absence of “gatekeeping” can be good for democratic discussion. However, research suggests that online incivility can actually influence the way people think about issues. A study from the University of Wisconsin–Madison indicated that people’s perceptions and opinions about the subject matter of an article became more ingrained after they read uncivil comments, even if they did not have much knowledge or an opinion about the topic beforehand (Anderson et al., 2013).

      Furthermore, despite their apparent interest in online politics, eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-old citizens in the U.S. demonstrate “shockingly low levels of political knowledge and information” (Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco, 2007, p. 1094). Results from the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated that only one-quarter of high school seniors showed at least a proficient level of civics knowledge, even though many of them were old enough to vote (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). Tony Wagner (2008), the Innovation Education Fellow at the Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard, put it this way:

      Students can always look up when the Battle of Gettysburg took place, or who General Sherman was, but they can’t just Google the causes of the Civil War and make sense of what comes up on the screen. To understand such an issue, you have to know how to think critically, and you need a broader conceptual understanding of American history, economics, and more. (p. 263)

      Fortunately, students do not need to rely on Internet message boards to learn to think critically, debate constructively, or become informed citizens. Teachers can help students develop argumentation skills through direct, comprehensive, and ongoing instruction in argumentation. Such instruction prepares students to meet the cognitive and interpersonal demands of life in a democratic society (such as the United States) and is a crucial requirement of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d).

      In the 1980s, education researcher Carole Hahn explored the relationship between classroom climate, controversial discussions, and the resulting political attitudes of students. In her study of adolescents in five different nations (England, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States), Hahn (1998) found that students who discussed controversial public policy issues in safe, open, and respectful environments were more likely to develop the skills needed for life in a democracy. Specifically, students who were encouraged to express opinions and explore alternate perspectives in school were more likely to:

      Expect political leaders to act in the best interests of their constituents

      Believe that citizens can affect or influence policy decisions

      Express interest and general awareness of politics and policy issues

      Have confidence in their own ability to influence decisions made in groups

      Intend to participate in politics in the future

      However, some individuals have warned against the inclusion of controversial issues in the classroom, particularly among younger students (Norwood, 1943; Scruton, Ellis-Jones, & O’Keefe, 1985; Totten, 1999). Classroom discussions about controversial public issues are scarce (Hahn, 1991; Kahne, Rodriguez, Smith, & Thiede, 2000; Shaver, Davis, & Helburn, 1978), and controversial discussions of any kind rarely occur in social studies classrooms (Nystrand, Gamoran, & Carbonaro, 1998). This may be because some teachers feel uncomfortable or unprepared to facilitate them (Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Shulz, 2001). Hess (2011) pointed out:

      Many teachers want to create environments in which students feel safe, valued, and respected. Controversial issues, by their very nature, can create passionate responses. This passion often degenerates into silence, anger, disrespect, and name-calling—the very opposite of the interactions teachers hope to promote. . . . Faced with this choice, many opt for respect over passion and avoid heated discussions. But teachers don’t have to make this choice. It is possible to talk about controversial issues in civil and productive ways so that students bring a healthy amount of passion to the classroom without treating one another harshly. (p. 70)

      We agree that avoiding controversy in the classroom is not an effective way to prepare students for democratic life. Although avoiding disagreements may be easier in some cases, such practices fail to train students to participate effectively in society. Moreover, they neglect to equip students with the college and career readiness skills outlined in the CCSS.

      Argumentation in the classroom has experienced a renewed emphasis with the advent of the CCSS, which defined argument as “a reasoned, logical way of demonstrating that the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 23). The CCSS “put particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 24) and cited a number of sources to support this emphasis (ACT, 2009; Graff, 2004; Milewski, Johnson, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005; Postman, 1997). To be college and career ready, the CCSS stated that students should be able to:

      Construct effective arguments and convey intricate or multifaceted information. . . . They comprehend as well as critique. . . . They work diligently to understand precisely what an author or speaker is

Скачать книгу