By middle childhood most students understand the concept of evidence, but do not use it when reading or writing arguments. It was hypothesized that teaching concepts about argument components, and tenching a strategy to organize the application of these concepts, would improve students' evaluations of written arguments. In a two-by-two factorial design, 55 grade 5 students read, wrote, and discussed arguments in instructional groups that emphasized: argument concepts; an organizational strategy; both concepts and strategy; or neither concepts nor strategy. Students in all treatment groups improved relative to the control group in evaluating arguments, and transferred gains from social to science items. Concept instruction significantly improved students' evaluations of invalid arguments with plausible claims. Strategy instruction significantly improved their argument writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, C.W., & Roth, K.J. (1989). Teaching for meaningful and self-regulated learning of science. Advances in Research on Teaching, 1, 265-309.
2.
Anderson, RC (1993). The future of reading research. In A.P. Sweet & J.I. Anderson (Eds.), Reading research into the year 2000 (pp.17-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Brown, A.L., & Palinscar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
Chambliss, M.J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778-807.
5.
Cohen, R. (1990). A processing model for the analysis of one-way arguments in discourse. Argumentation, 4, 431-446.
6.
de Bono, E. (1991). The direct teaching of thinking in education and the CoRT Method. In S. Maclure & P. Davies (Eds.), Learning to think, thinking to learn: The proceedings of the 1989 OECD conference organized by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (pp.3-14). Oxford : Pergamon Press.
7.
Feldman, C.F., & Wertsch, J.V. (1976). Context dependent properties of children's speech . Youth and Society, 7, 227-256.
8.
Feurstein, R., Rand, Y.Hoffman, M.B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
9.
Ghatala, E.S., Levin, J.R., Pressley, M.R., & Lodico, M.G. (1985). Training cognitive-strategy monitoring in children . American Educational Research Journal, 22, 199-215.
10.
Goodman, Y.M., & Goodman, K.S. (1990). Vygotsky in whole language perspective. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 223-250). Cambridge: University Press.
11.
Kirkwood, K.J., & Wolfe, RG (1980). Matching students and reading materials. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education.
12.
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689.
13.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Kuhn D. ( 1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
15.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
16.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
17.
Nisbett, R.E. (1993). Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Olson, D.R., & Astington, J.W. (1993). Thinking about thinking: Learning how to take statements and hold beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 28, 7-23.
19.
Oostdam, R.J. (1990). Empirical research on the identification of singular, multiple, and subordinate argumentation. Argunzentation, 4, 223-234.
20.
Perkins, D.N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562-571.
21.
Ross, J.A. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-analysis of training studies. Review of Edurational Research, 58, 405-437.
22.
Ruffman, T., Pemer, J., Olson, D.R., & Doherty, M. (1993). Reflecting on scientific thinking: Children's understanding of the hypothesis-evidence relation. Child Development , 64, 1617-1636.
23.
Sirotnik, K.A. (1983). What you see is what you get—consistency, persistency and mediocrity in classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 16-31.
24.
Smith, F. (1990). To think. New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
Sodian, B., & Schneider, W. (1990). Children's understanding of cognitive cuing: How to manipulate cues to fool a competitor. Child Development , 61, 697-704.
26.
Sodian, B., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1991). Young children's differentiation of hypothetical beliefs from evidence. Child Development, 62, 753-766.
27.
Staab, C.F. (1992). Teachers' practices with regard to oral language . In S. Towson (Ed.), Educational psychology: Readings for the Canadian Context (pp.297-316). Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
28.
Stein, N.L., & Miller, C.A. (1993). A theory of argumentative understanding: Relationships among position preference, judgments of goodness, memory and reasoning. Argumentation, 7, 183-204.
29.
van Eemeren, F.H., de Glopper, K., Grootendorst, R., & Oostdam, R. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Argunientation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Associntian,25, 239-245.
30.
Voss, J.F., Fincher-Kiefer, R.Wiley, J., & Silfies, L.N. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7,165-181.
31.
Wragg, E.C. (1993). Primary teaching skills. London : Routledge.
