Bolstering students’ written argumentation by refining an effective discourse intervention: negotiating the fine line between flexibility and fidelity
Effective interventions are needed to bolster students’ argumentation capacities, an area in which they consistently struggle. Quality Talk (QT) is an approach to small-group classroom discussion shown to support students’ oral argumentation with preliminary evidence that it may also bolster students’ written argumentation. Teachers often must adapt interventions to their local context, balancing needed flexibility with sufficient adherence to fidelity to reach expected efficacy. The present study was conducted over one school year with two fifth-grade teachers and their 46 students. In Phase I, two participating teachers implemented a refined version of QT, and we examined the effects on students’ oral and written argumentation performance. While typical gains in students’ oral argumentation performance were evidenced, students’ written argumentation did not improve to the degree expected, particularly in terms of performance with unfamiliar texts. In Phase II, both teachers reincorporated a component of QT (i.e., regular post-discussion written argumentation practice) they had adapted in Phase I, and one teacher added a new written argumentation scaffold designed to further bolster students’ transfer from oral to written argumentation. By the end of the study, students from both classes evidenced growth in written argumentation, but the students from the class receiving the writing scaffold outperformed comparison class students with large effects. Findings underscore the importance of including regular post-discussion written argumentation practice and illustrate the added value of a new written argumentation scaffold, while also contributing to a better understanding of how to balance flexibility and fidelity for efficacious QT implementation.
KeywordsSmall-group discussion Quality Talk Oral argumentation Argumentative writing
This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, through Grant R305A130031 to the Pennsylvania State University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not represent the views of the Institute or the US Department of Education.
- Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- College Board. (2004). Report of the National Commission of Writing for America’s families, schools, and colleges. Writing: A Ticket to Work... Or a Ticket Out. A Survey of Business Leaders. https://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/21479/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d.
- Council of Writing Program Administrators, the National Council of Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project. (2011). Framework for success in postsecondary writing. http://wpacouncil.org/files/framework-for-success-postsecondary-writing.pdf.
- Croninger, R. M. V., Li, M., Cameron, C., & Murphy, P. K. (2017). Classroom discussions: Building the foundation for productive talk. In P. K. Murphy (Ed.), Classroom discussions in education: Promoting productive talk about text and content (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- De La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., & MacArthur, C. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29, 412–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312461591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- De La Paz, S., & McCutchen, D. (2011). Learning to write. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 382–407). New York and London: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I. H., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 400–424. http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/20068354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Durlak, J. A. (2010). The importance of doing well in whatever you do: A commentary on the special section, “Implementation research in early childhood education.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(3), 348–357. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200610000232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Felton, M., & Herko, S. (2004). From dialogue to two-sided argument: Scaffolding adolescents’ persuasive writing. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47, 672–683. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016901.
- Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can’t write arguments. English in Education, 18, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.1984.tb00668.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goffreda, C., & Diperna, J. (2010). An empirical review of psychometric evidence for the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 463–483.Google Scholar
- Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
- Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2017). Self-regulated strategy development: Theoretical bases, critical instructional elements, and future research. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (series editors) and R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (volume editors), Studies in writing: Design principles for teaching effective writing: Theoretical and empirical grounded principles (Vol. 34). Leiden: Brill Editions.Google Scholar
- Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
- Hays, J. N., & Brandt, K. S. (1992). Socio-cognitive development and students’ performance on audience-centered argumentative writing. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 202–229). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
- Hoose, P. M. (2001). We were there, too!: Young people in U.S. history. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
- Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Beker, K. (2016). Argumentative reasoning. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 39–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jimenez-Aleibandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleibandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kline, F. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruction in class settings: A research perspective. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 361–406). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
- Knudson, R. E. (1992, December). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. In Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 353 381.Google Scholar
- Lauer, J. M. (1994). Persuasive writing on public issues. In W. R. Winterowd & V. Gillespie (Eds.), Composition in context: Essays in honor of D. C. Stewart (pp. 62–72). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
- Li, M., Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2014). Examining the effects of text genre and structure on 4th- and 5th-grade students’ high-level comprehension as evidenced in small-group discussions. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(3), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2014.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Li, M., Murphy, P. K., Wang, J., Mason, L. H., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., et al. (2016). Promoting reading comprehension and critical-analytic thinking: A comparison of three approaches with fourth and fifth graders. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Long, V. A., Firetto, C. M., & Murphy, P. K. (2014, August). Transfer effects from small group discussions of text to writing. In Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- López, C., & Vicuña, A. M. (2011). Improving the teaching of argumentation through pragma-dialectical rules and a community of inquiry. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1130–1140).Google Scholar
- Mason, L. H., Reid, R., & Hagaman, J. (2012). Building comprehension in adolescents: Powerful strategies for improving reading and writing in content areas. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
- McLaughlin, M. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Research, 19(9), 11–16. http://web.stanford.edu/group/suse-crc/cgi-bin/drupal/sites/default/files/rand-change.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Murphy, P. K. (Ed.). (2018). Classroom discussions in education: Promoting productive talk about text and content. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Murphy, P. K., & Firetto, C. M. (2018). Quality Talk: A blueprint for productive talk. In P. Karen Murphy (Ed.), Classroom discussions in education: Promoting productive talk about text and content. Educational Psychology Insights Series (pp. 101–133). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Greene, J. A., & Butler, A. M. (2017a). Analyzing the talk in Quality Talk discussions: A coding manual. https://doi.org/10.18113/S1XW64.
- Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Li, M., Wei, L., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2017b). Fostering student writing through intervention research: An examination of key components. In R. Fidalgo & T. Olive (series editors) and R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & M. Braaksma (volume editors), Studies in Writing Series: Design principles for teaching effective writing (Vol. 34, pp. 253–279). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
- Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2016). What REALLY works: Optimizing classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Science, 3(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215624215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Hendrick, B., Li, M., Montalbano, C., et al. (2018). Quality Talk: Developing students’ discourse to promote high-level comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1113–1160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218771303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Firetto, C. M., Li, M., Lobczowski, N. G., Duke, R. F., et al. (2017c). Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Soter, A. O. (2011). Instruction based on discussion. In R. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 382–407). New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Reading framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.edpubs.gov/document/ed002606p.pdf?ck=6.
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf.
- National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts: Kindergarten-Grade 12 Introduction. Washington, DC: Authors. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/students-who-are-college-and-career-ready-in-reading-writing-speaking-listening-language/.
- Pearson. (2012). AIMSweb technical manual (R-CBM and TEL). Eden Prairie, NM: NCS Pearson Inc.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1928). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- Rogoff, B. (2017). Teaching exceptional children. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350040101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Webb, N. M., & Palinscar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Developing a model of Quality Talk about literary text. In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 142–169). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Tsai, H. F. (2011, August). Theoretically framing research on classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. In Paper presented at the 14th biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Exeter, UK.Google Scholar
- Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(1), 49–83.Google Scholar