![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
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.
References
Section:
|
Alexander, R.J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). York, England: Dialogos. Google Scholar | |
|
Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (3), 685–730. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Eisenberg, A., Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153. Google Scholar | |
|
Gardner, S. (2015). Commentary on ‘Inquiry is no mere conversation.’ Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 2 (1), 71–91. Google Scholar | |
|
Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Google Scholar | |
|
Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Juzwik, M.M., Sherry, M.B., Caughlan, S., Heintz, A., Borsheim-Black, C. (2012). Supporting dialogically organized instruction in an English teacher preparation program: A video-based, web 2.0-mediated response and revision pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 114 (3), 1–42. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25 (1), 95–111. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Murphy, P.K., Wilkinson, I.A.G., Soter, A., Hennessey, M.N., Alexander, J.F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (3), 740–764. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & The Council of Chief State School Officers . (2010). Common Core State Standards: Appendix A. Research supporting key elements of the standards. Washington, DC: Authors. Google Scholar | |
|
Nussbaum, E.M., Sinatra, G.M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28 (3), 384–395. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., Long, D.A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 135–198. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Partnership for 21st Century Skills . (2012). A framework for 21st century learning. Washington, DC: Author. www.p21.org/index.php Google Scholar | |
|
Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York, NY: Knopf. Google Scholar | |
|
Postman, N. (2005). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York, NY: Penguin. Google Scholar | |
|
Resnick, L.B., Asterhan, C.S.C., Clarke, S.N. (2015). Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R.C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative Reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39 (1), 29–48. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Reznitskaya, A., Wilkinson, I.A.G. (2017). The most reasonable answer: Helping students build better arguments together. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Splitter, L.J., Sharp, A.M. (1996). The practice of philosophy in the classroom. In Sharp, A.M., Reed, R.F. (Eds.), Studies in philosophy for children: Pixie (pp. 285–314). Madrid, Spain: Ediciones De La Torre. Google Scholar | |
|
Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Wang, A.B. (2016, 11. 16). ‘Post-truth’ named 2016 word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries.The Washington Post. Google Scholar | |
|
Wilkinson, I.A.G., Reznitskaya, A., Bourdage, K., Oyler, J., Nelson, K., Glina, M., Kim, M.-Y. (2016). Toward a more dialogic pedagogy: Changing teachers’ beliefs and practices through professional development in language arts classrooms. Language & Education, 31 (1), 65–82. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
