Summary of “High School English Language Arts Teachers’ Argumentative Epistemologies for Teaching Writing”

After observing 31 high school ELA classrooms, this case study describes how three different high school English teachers perceive and teach argumentative writing.  The authors of this study go beyond focusing on “best practices “and instead offer a deeper illustration of how and why each teacher approaches argumentative writing the way they do.   Within the three case studies, one teacher approaches the unit from a structural/organization standpoint, another by focusing on ideas and critical thinking, and the last approaches the unit through social practices with attention to students’ consideration for writing for appropriate audience and context. The findings of the study imply that ELA teachers have a wealth of ideas and tools for teaching argumentative writing that should not be ignored and that current motions such as the Common Core and other “efforts to foster teacher learning and development must understand this complex dynamic” (117).

Question/Problem: “1. What argumentative epistemologies are reflected in the instructional units on argumentative writing?  2. How were teachers’ epistemologies for teaching argumentation made evident in their instructional reasoning and enactment of instructional conversations?”  (100).

Authors: George E. Newell, Jennifer VanDerHeide, and Allison Wynhoff Olsen

Source (Book, Journal..): Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 49, No. 2, November 2014 pp. 95-119

Theoretical or Study-Based: Qualitative/ analysis of 3 case studies

Study Description: Number of participants: 31 high school ELA classrooms observed with 3 chosen case studies Age of Participants: professional educations; case study teachers with 14 years experience, 16 years experiences, and 8 years experience Length of study: From September 2010 to May 2012 (2 school-years) Measurement Tool: Data sources of 3 case study teachers included teacher interviews and debriefings, teacher surveys, classroom observations, student writing samples (teacher-selected), student interviews and student surveys (102). Setting: 3 case study locations: 1) urban, 9th grade college prep with ethnic minority and white student population; 2) suburban, 12th grade Advanced Placement with mostly white student population; 3) suburban, 11th grade college prep with mostly white student population Research Design: First, the researchers observed 31 ELA classrooms and chose 3 representative of the 3 major epistemologies identified for approaching argumentative writing. Next, the researchers collected the data listed from above and coded “instructional chains” or the main objectives of each teacher’s activities/mini lessons. The researchers met frequently to cross-examine their coding and talk through any discrepancies. Also, the researchers interviewed the teachers and asked the following questions, which they then coded for key words to fit into one of the three epistemologies: “How do you define argumentative writing? What are the key components of argumentative writing? • How would you describe your approach to teaching argumentative writing? ·      What instructional strategies do you view as critical to teaching argumentative writing? • What are your general goals for teaching argumentative writing?” (103)

Findings: 1. 18/31 teachers in the study focused on structural epistemology as their main method of teaching argument by emphasizing the concepts ‘claim,’ ‘evidence,’ and ‘warrant.’ 2.  Scaffolding and prioritizing the structural components of writing allow students to better organize and understand their own thoughts. The teacher then facilitates this process. 3. Only 3/31 teachers used “argumentative writing as an ideational tool” in which argumentation is “not the destination but the vehicle that allows students to develop original critical thinking and ideas” (109). This method is primarily used with building an argument within a certain discourse or discipline, such as refining the skill of drafting a college-level literary analysis essay. 4. 10/31 teachers used the “social practice epistemology…to consider to whom, how, when, where under what conditions, and what purposes they may be making an argument” (112). 5.  In the social practices epistemology, teachers value reframing the concepts of argumentation to other disciplines or venues beyond school, such as a crime scene investigation, to show students how warrants can help “anticipate the demands of a [specific] audience” (115).

Implications: 1.  This study allows us to see patterns in how ELA teachers teach as well as how they rationalize their choices for methods in teaching and defining argumentative writing. In turn, this provides us a starting point to discuss the instructional focus of argumentation skills, especially “on form versus content in argumentative writing” (116). 2. “Studying teachers’ practical reasoning for specific actions is important as a tool for considering how teachers think about practice and as an intervention to foster changes and new thinking grounded in the contexts of their own practice” (116). This is incredibly important for me to think about as I prepare to guide a pre-service teacher and co-teach with this teacher candidate in my classroom. 3. As more and more curricula is controlled by forces outside of the classroom, I think it’s important to study and document teaching practices and the professional study of teaching practices.  There is a wealth of knowledge, experience, and skill here that cannot be overlooked as we are asked to adapt to less credible standards outside of our control as educators.