Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument

This article examines the effects of participation in oral argumentation on the development of individual reasoning as expressed in persuasive essays. Engagement in oral argumentation is the essential feature of a classroom discussion method called collaborative reasoning. A premise of this method is that reasoning is fundamentally dialogical and, hence, the development of reasoning is best nurtured in supportive dialogical settings such as group discussion. Students from 3 classrooms participated in collaborative reasoning discussions for a period of 5 weeks. Then, these students and students from 3 comparable classrooms who had not engaged in collaborative reasoning wrote persuasive essays. The essays of collaborative reasoning students contained a significantly greater number of relevant arguments, counter-arguments, rebuttals, formal argument devices, and uses of text information.

[1]  R. W. Tyler.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress , 1967 .

[2]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[3]  C. Simon.  Philosophy for students with learning disabilities , 1979 .

[4]  W. R. Higa.  Philosophy for Children in Hawaii: A Quantitative Evaluation , 1980 .

[5]  Jana M. Mason,et al.  Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis* , 1981 .

[6]  Bruce B. Burnes.  Harry Stottlemeier Discovery: The Minnesota Experience , 1981 .

[7]  M. Bakhtin,et al.  The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays , 1981 .

[8]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge , 1982 .

[9]  Suzanne Hidi,et al.  The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse types , 1983 .

[10]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension. Technical Report No. 306. , 1988 .

[11]  A. Pellegrini,et al.  Persuasion as a social-cognitive activity: The effects of age and channel of communication on children's production of persuasive messages , 1984 .

[12]  Keith J Holyoak,et al.  Pragmatic reasoning schemas , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  T. Govier.  Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation , 2018 .

[14]  R. Paul,et al.  Dialogical thinking: Critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational knowledge and passions. , 1987 .

[15]  Marion Crowhurst,et al.  Research Review: Patterns of Development in Writing Persuasive/Argumentative Discourse. , 1988 .

[16]  Courtney B. Cazden,et al.  Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Second Edition. , 2001 .

[17]  T. Mccann.  Student Argumentative Writing Knowledge and Ability at Three Grade Levels , 1989, Research in the Teaching of English.

[18]  K. Holyoak,et al.  On the natural selection of reasoning theories , 1989, Cognition.

[19]  Joseph J. Onosko.  Comparing teachers’ instruction to promote students’ thinking , 1990 .

[20]  Marion Crowhurst,et al.  Teaching and Learning the Writing of Persuasive/Argumentative Discourse , 1990 .

[21]  P. David Pearson.  Handbook of reading research. , 1990 .

[22]  D. Kuhn.  THE SKILLS OF ARGUMENT , 2008, Education for Thinking.

[23]  D. Kuhn.  Thinking as Argument , 1992 .

[24]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[25]  G. Politzer,et al.  Reasoning about Conditional Promises and Warnings: Darwinian Algorithms, Mental Models, Relevance Judgements or Pragmatic Schemas? , 1992 .

[26]  Michelle Commeyras,et al.  Promoting Critical Thinking through Dialogical-Thinking Reading Lessons. , 1993 .

[27]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Adult literacy in America , 1993 .

[28]  Ruth E. Knudson.  An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand , 1994 .

[29]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Martha Waggoner.  Collaborative Reasoning about Stories. , 1995 .

[31]  Stephanie D. Teasley.  The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. , 1995 .

[32]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING Technical Report No . 628 ON THE LOGICAL INTEGRITY OF CHILDREN ' S ARGUMENTS ' , 2012 .

[33]  J. F. Voss,et al.  Who Reasons Well? Two Studies of Informal Reasoning Among Children of Different Grade, Ability, and Knowledge Levels , 1996 .

[34]  M. Lipman.  Education for Democracy and Freedom. , 1997 .

[35]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Collaborative Discovery in a Scientific Domain , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[36]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentive Reasoning , 1997 .

[37]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  The Structure of Discussions that Promote Reasoning , 1998, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[38]  A. King,et al.  Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. , 1998 .

[39]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  The Structure of Discourse in Collaborative Learning , 2000 .

[40]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Structural Aspects of Constructing Meaning From Text , 2000 .

[41]  Edward H. Haertel,et al.  NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS , 2000 .

[42]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion , 2001 .

[43]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  The Snowball Phenomenon: Spread of Ways of Talking and Ways of Thinking Across Groups of Children , 2001 .

[44]  Teaching for Thinking , 2001 .