Alina Reznitskaya

The Snowball Phenomenon: Spread of Ways of Talking and Ways of Thinking Across Groups of Children

Social influences on the reasoning and rhetorical strategies of 104 fourth graders were examined during 48 small-group discussions. A total of 14,942 lines of discussion transcript were sifted to determine patterns of occurrence of 13 argument stratagems serving several rhetorical functions. The major finding was that the use of argument stratagems snowballs. That is, once a useful stratagem has been used by a child during a discussion, it tends to spread to other children and occur with increasing frequency. After the first appearance of a stratagem, the probability that it will appear again usually rises and remains high. In general, there are fewer and fewer lines of discussion between successive appearances of a stratagem. The snowball phenomenon was more pronounced during discussions with open participation than during discussions with teacher-controlled participation.

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.

Collaborative reasoning: a dialogic approach to group discussions

In this paper, we address the need to develop an empirically‐based understanding of the use of dialogue in teaching by discussing theory and research related to a pedagogical approach called collaborative reasoning (CR). CR is an instructional method designed to engage elementary school children in group discussions about controversial issues raised in their readings. CR is grounded in social learning and schema‐theoretic views of cognition, which are integrated to form a new model, called argument schema theory (AST). According to AST, students acquire generalizable knowledge of argumentation, or an argument schema, through participating in dialogic discussions with their peers. The article reviews empirical evidence from a variety of studies designed to evaluate the educational potential of dialogic interactions. The studies investigated group processes during CR discussions, individual student outcomes following participation in discussions, and the connections between the features of social interaction and individual student performance. We conclude that, despite its complexity, classroom dialogue can serve as a useful mechanism for promoting the development of individual argumentation.

Teaching and learning argumentation

This study systematically analyzed social and cognitive processes that underlie the development of argumentative knowledge. Group discussions of controversial issues and explicit instruction in argumentation were expected to help students acquire a sense of the overall structure of an argument, or an argument schema. In a quasi‐experiment, 128 fourth‐ and fifth‐grade students from 2 schools completed the same argument‐related tasks, after receiving different instructional treatments. In the first treatment condition, students engaged in group discussions of moral and social issues raised in their readings. In the second treatment condition, we supported group discussions with explicit instruction in abstract principles of argumentation. Students in the third condition received their regular reading instruction. Postintervention tasks included responding to an interview designed to elicit awareness of the criteria for a satisfactory argument, writing a reflective composition, and recalling an argumentative text. We quantified the data through assigning codes to oral and written text students produced. Next, we examined treatment differences using statistical models and discussed characteristic features of student responses. Findings revealed the complexity of learning and transfer in the domain of argumentation. Students who engaged in discussions with or without explicit instruction provided well‐articulated responses to the interview questions. Student performance on the reflective essay was improved only by participation in discussions, although mean differences between some pairs of classrooms did not reach statistical significance. Recall of the argumentative text was generally insensitive to variations in treatment; however, the writings of some students suggested benefits from discussions and explicit instruction.

Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching

Dialogue, as a communication form characterized by its commitment to inclusiveness and rationality, has long been advocated by educators as a mechanism for helping students become better thinkers. Unfortunately, numerous claims about the educational potential of participating in dialogue have not resulted in substantial changes in classroom practices. Studies have consistently shown that in todays schools the dominant discourse remains largely monologic. In this article, we present a testable theory of change that suggests how sociocultural processes in a dialogic classroom influence students’ development. We identify and discuss three learning outcomes of dialogic teaching, including epistemological understanding, argument skills, and disciplinary knowledge. We then critically review empirical research related to the proposed theory, highlighting unsolved questions, inconsistencies, and directions for future studies. Finally, we focus on the implications of the proposed integrated theory and reviewed research for teachers and their language use in a classroom.

Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms

ABSTRACT In this paper, we report findings from the second year of a three-year research and professional development program designed to help elementary school teachers engage in dialogic teaching to support the development of students’ argument literacy. We define argument literacy as the ability to comprehend and formulate arguments through speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The professional development program was focused on promoting teachers’ use of a specific type of talk called ‘inquiry dialogue’ to achieve the goal of developing students’ argument literacy. We used a single-group pretest-posttest design to assess the impact of the professional development on teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their enactment of inquiry dialogue in text-based discussions. Our analyses of videotaped discussions at the beginning and end of the year showed that there were substantial improvements in teachers’ facilitation of inquiry dialogue and in the quality of students’ argumentation during discussions. Contrary to expectations, however, there were no changes in teachers’ epistemology; teachers’ beliefs about knowledge and knowledge justification remained at a relativist stage throughout the course of the program, suggesting that teachers continued to view all opinions as equally valid and regard arguments and the use of reasons and evidence as idiosyncratic.

Comparing Student Experiences with Story Discussions in Dialogic Versus Traditional Settings

ABSTRACT The authors examined the testimonials of 60 elementary school students about their experience during class discussions of assigned readings. They randomly assigned 12 classrooms to 2 treatments: Philosophy for Children (P4C) and Regular Instruction. P4C is an alternative educational environment that places dialogue at the center of its pedagogy. Ten students from each classroom were interviewed. According to the results, significantly more P4C students stated that they enjoyed expressing disagreement with peers, taking on new responsibilities, and explaining their thinking to others. More P4C students complained about the difficulties with getting the floor to speak, and suggested that changes are needed to better balance group participation. The authors discuss these findings and suggest implications for research and teaching.

Teaching for Wisdom Through History: Infusing Wise Thinking Skills in the School Curriculum

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, some residents of New Orleans who remained in the city began looting stores. Many were in search of food and water and other basic necessities that were unavailable because of the destruction. Jackie Roberts, the owner of a drugstore on Canal Street, faced a dilemma: open the doors of her store and let people come in and take what they wanted, which would mean losing more money in addition to the damage the floods had already done to her store and storage facilities; or protect her store from looters with the help of a few armed friends, shooting at looters if necessary. Lee Ann Brown of Baton Rouge faced another type of dilemma. The single mother, who works two jobs, was concerned for her elderly parents, who can no longer care for themselves. After reading media accounts of what happened in some nursing homes when Hurricane Katrina hit, Brown worried that her parents would not properly be cared for in the type of nursing home she could afford. On the other hand, taking them in to live with her and her two children would exacerbate tensions in their already cramped household, and her teenage sons strongly opposed it. When the Miller family evacuated their home on Lake Pontchartrain, they were confronted with the realization that all their household pets, including two dogs, could not fit in the car that would take them out of the city to safety. They had to make a choice—leave some of the animals behind or have a family member remain with the pets until further evacuation help could be found. All three examples above depict people in extremely difficult situations; but the kinds of dilemmas they face are similar to what all of us, at any age, have to confront when choosing between our own best interests and those of others, be they strangers, close family members, or beloved pets. To solve dilemmas of this type, we need more than just knowledge or analytical thinking skills. We need wisdom.

Truth matters: Teaching young students to search for the most reasonable answer

Learning how to formulate, comprehend, and evaluate arguments is an essential part of helping students develop the ability to make better, more reasonable judgments. The Common Core identified argumentation as a fundamental life skill that is broadly important for the literate person. According to the authors, having students engage in an inquiry dialogue oriented toward finding the most reasonable answer is key to developing the skills of argumentation. Inquiry dialogue starts with a contestable, big question that is relevant to student interests and addresses a central issue raised in a text. Such questions invite students to take part in a genuine quest for truth and allow them to develop more reasonable and personally meaningful judgments. Inquiry dialogue is neither teacher-centered nor student-centered; rather, it is truth-centered. In a recent three-year project, the authors worked with elementary school teachers to learn how to support the use of such dialogue-intensive instruction in language arts classrooms.