Although Toulmin models of argumentation are pervasive in composition textbooks, research on the model's use in writing classrooms has been scarce'typically limited to evaluating how students' essays align with the model's elements (claim, data, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, backing) construed as objective standards. That approach discounts Toulmin's emphasis on context. In contrast, this study of a major university's summer composition program for high school students employs Wenger's notion of communities of practice and Bakhtin's notion of response to trace how classroom contexts mediate students' and teachers' understandings of a Toulmin model. The article presents a case study of a controversy that emerged when participants attempted to identify the main claim in one student's essay. The controversy arose, the analysis suggests, as participants positioned competing tacit and explicit representations of claims with/against other rhetorical terms (for example, thesis), variously interpreted the assigned tasks, and negotiated over tasks and texts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.; V. W. McGee, Trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
2.
Barnet, S., & Bedau, H. (1996). Critical thinking: Reading and writing (2nd ed.). Boston: St. Martin's.
3.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-101). London: Taylor & Francis.
5.
Black, K. (1989). Audience analysis and persuasive writing at the college level. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 231-253.
6.
Blakeslee, A. M. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 125-169.
7.
Blakeslee, A. M. (2001). Interacting with audiences: Social influences on the production of scientific writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Bové, P. A. (1988). The rationality of disciplines: The abstract understanding of Stephen Toulmin. In J. Arac (Ed.), After Foucault: Humanistic knowledge, postmodern challenges(pp. 42-70). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
9.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research universities. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York at Stony Brook for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
10.
Carlsen, W. S., & Hall, K. (1997). Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 14-23.
11.
Cawelti, G. S., & Duncan, J. L. (1993). The inventive writer: A discovery-based rhetoric. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
12.
Chapman, D. W., & Waller, P. L. (1995). The power of writing, with additional readings. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
13.
Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315-368.
14.
Clark, I. L. (1998). The genre of argument. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
15.
Clauss, P. J. (1999). Stephen Toulmin's The uses of argument: A contextual re-reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
16.
Clauss, P. J. (2000, April). Toulmin's schema, not traditional logic. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, MN.
17.
Coe, R. M. (1990). Process, form, and substance: A rhetoric for advanced writers (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text(pp. 57-71). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.
20.
Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric(Vol. 2, pp. 138-159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Corbett, E.P.J., & Eberly, R. A. (2000). The elements of reasoning (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
Crammond, J. G. (1997). An analysis of argument structure in expert and student persuasive writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
23.
Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, 230-268.
24.
Cross, G. A. (1994). Collaboration and conflict: A contextual exploration of group writing and positive emphasis. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
25.
Crusius, T. W., & Channell, C. E. (2000). The aims of argument: A rhetoric and reader (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
26.
Diamondstone, J. V. (1997). Contested relations and authoritative texts: Seventh-grade students (1987) and legal professionals (1954) argue Brown v. Board of Education. Written Communication, 14, 189-220.
27.
Durst, R. K. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347-376.
28.
Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interactions of writing and classroom discourse. Written Communication, 13, 385-425.
29.
Faigley, L., & Selzer, J. (2000). Good reasons. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
30.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 45-65.
31.
Fulkerson, R. (1996). The Toulmin model of argument and the teaching of composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & D. Tenney (Eds.), Argument revisited, argument redefined: Negotiating meaning in the composition classroom (pp. 45-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Gasper, D., & George, R. V. (1997). Analysing argumentation in planning and public policy: Assessing, improving and transcending the Toulmin model (Working Paper Series no. 262). The Hague, The Netherlands: Institute of Social Studies.
33.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1-42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Hairston, M. C. (1981). Successful writing: A rhetoric for advanced composition. New York: Norton.
36.
Halasek, K. (1999). A pedagogy of possibility: Bakhtinian perspectives on composition studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
37.
Harris, J. (1997). A teaching subject: Composition since 1966. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
38.
Harris, J. G., & Cunningham, D. H. (1994). The Simon & Schuster guide to writing (Brief ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39.
Hatch, G. L. (1999). Arguing in communities (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
40.
Herrington, A. J. (1988). Teaching, writing, and learning: A naturalistic study of writing in an undergraduate literature course. In D. A. Jolliffe (Ed.), Advances in writing research: Vol. 2. Writing in academic disciplines (pp. 133-166). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41.
Hirschberg, S. (1996). Essential strategies of argument. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
42.
Huff, D. (1993). Howto lie with statistics. New York: Norton. (Original work published 1954)
43.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (1997, March). Argument in high school genetics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.
44.
Johnson, D. E. (1995). Transactions in symbolic resources: A resource dependence model of congressional deliberation. Sociological Perspectives, 38, 151-173.
45.
Kennedy, X. J., Kennedy, D. M., & Aaron, J. E. (2000). The Bedford reader (7th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
46.
Knudson, R. E. (1992a). Analysis of argumentative writing at two grade levels. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 169-179.
47.
Knudson, R. E. (1992b). The development of written argumentation: An analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study Journal, 22, 167-184.
48.
Laib, N. K. (1993). Rhetoric and style: Strategies for advanced writers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
49.
Lauer, J. M., Montague, G., Lunsford, A., & Emig, J. (1991). Four worlds of writing (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
50.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Lunsford, A. A., & Ruszkiewicz, J. J. (2001). Everything's an argument (2nd ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
52.
Mayberry, K. J. (1999). For argument's sake: A guide to writing effective arguments (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
53.
McCann, T. M. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62-76.
54.
McGee, T. (2000, April). Toulmin without Aristotle: Unimaginable warrants. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapolis, MN.
55.
McMeniman, L. (1999). From inquiry to argument. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
56.
Miller, R. K. (1999). The informed argument (Brief ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
57.
Miller, S. (1991). Textual carnivals: The politics of composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
58.
Murphy, S., & Ruth, L. (1993). The field testing of writing prompts reconsidered. In M. Williamson & B. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 266-302). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
59.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP) 1998: Writing report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
60.
Nicholas, J. K., & Nicholl, J. R. (1991). Effective argument: A writer's guide with readings. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
61.
Ochs, E. (1979). Introduction: What child language can contribute to pragmatics. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 1-17). New York: Academic Press.
62.
Oliver, E. I. (1995). The writing quality of seventh, ninth, and eleventh graders, and college freshmen: Does rhetorical specification in writing prompts make a difference?Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 422-450.
63.
Olson, G. A. (1993). Literary theory, philosophy of science, and persuasive discourse: Thoughts from a neo-premodernist. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13, 283-309.
64.
Porter, J. E. (1992). Audience and rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
65.
Prior, P. A. (1991). Contextualizing writing and response in a graduate seminar. Written Communication, 8, 267-310.
66.
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
Ramage, J. D., & Bean, J. C.(1992). Writing arguments (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
68.
Redd-Boyd, T. M., & Slater, W. H. (1989). The effects of audience specification on under-graduates' attitudes, strategies, and writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 77-108.
69.
Rottenberg, A. T. (1994). Elements of argument: A textured reader (4th ed.). Boston: St. Martin's.
70.
Scharton, M. (1989). Models of competence: Responses to a scenario writing assignment. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 163-180.
71.
Scharton, M., & Neuleib, J. (1993). Inside out: A guide to writing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
72.
Slattery, P. J. (1991). The argumentative, multiple-source paper: College students reading, thinking, and writing about divergent points of view. Journal of Teaching Writing, 10, 181-199.
73.
Sperling, M. (1994). Constructing the perspective of teacher-as-reader: A framework for studying response to student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 175-203.
74.
Spigelman, C. (2000). Across property lines: Textual ownership in writing groups. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press for the National Council of Teachers of English.
75.
Spurgin, S. D. (1985). The power to persuade. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
76.
Straub, R. (1997). Students' reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 91-119.
77.
Swearingen, C. J. (1994). Novissimum organum: Phronesis on the rebound. In G. A. Olson (Ed.), Philosophy, rhetoric, literary criticism: (Inter)views (pp. 227-233). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
78.
Thornburg, D. G. (1991). Strategy instruction for academically at-risk students: An exploratory study of teaching “higher-order” reading and writing in the social studies. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 377-406.
79.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
80.
Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
81.
Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82.
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
83.
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
84.
Trimbur, J. (1999). The call to write. New York: Longman.
85.
Vesterman, W. (1994). Reading and writing short arguments. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
86.
Walvoord, B. E., & McCarthy, L. P. (1990). Thinking and writing in college: A naturalistic study of students in four disciplines. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
87.
Wangerin, P. T. (1993). A multidisciplinary analysis of the structure of persuasive arguments. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 16(1), 195-239.
88.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89.
Williams, J. M. (1995). Style: Toward clarity and grace (Paperback ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (First published in 1981)
90.
Wood, N. V. (2001). Perspectives on argument (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
91.
Yagelski, R. P. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 216-238.
92.
Ye, L. R., & Johnson, P. E. (1995). The impact of explanation facilities on user acceptance of expert systems advice. MIS Quarterly, 19, 157-172.
93.
Yeh, S. S. (1998a). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49-83.
94.
Yeh, S. S. (1998b). Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing Writing, 5, 123-150.
