Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: instructional practices in secondary education

Abstract

Dialogical argumentation practice contributes positively to argumentative writing skills. Specifically, deliberative dialogues are effective in promoting argument and counterargument integration in students' essays. However, the potential of dialogic activities may be increased if they are combined with instructional practices. The primary objective of this research is to compare the impact of four intervention programs, aimed at improving argumentative synthesis writing from conflicting sources. The four programs resulted from the combination of two instructional components (Explicit Instruction through video modelling—EI, or a Procedural Guideline—G), while Deliberative Dialogues—DD—were a constant element. We conducted a pre-post quasi-experimental study in which 186 Spanish third grade secondary school students (aged 14–15) participated. We evaluated the quality of the syntheses by examining the level of argumentative coverage (the total number of arguments included in the synthesis) and the level of integration (the type and frequency of the argumentative strategies used in the syntheses). The results showed that the effectiveness of the instructional methods varies according to the synthesis quality indicator. Explicit instruction, in combination with deliberative dialogues, was especially helpful in improving the level of integration of syntheses. The procedural guideline, in combination with deliberative dialogues, contributed significantly to the coverage of arguments. The combination of these two elements did not favor the writing of synthesis as expected, probably due to the conditions in which the intervention was carried out. The findings of this study revealed that the coverage of arguments and integration processes are of different nature, follow different learning paths and require different instructional processes.

Appendices

This instruction corresponds to the DD + G + EI program. The instruction in the DD + EI program followed the same structure, but without including allusions to the procedural guideline.

Appendix 1: Explicit Instructions (script)-DD + G + EI condition

This instruction corresponds to the DD + G + EI program. The instruction in the DD + EI program followed the same structure, but without including allusions to the procedural guideline.

Good morning everyone. Within the activities of our argumentation project, today we are going to teach you to integrate different positions when discussing a controversial issue.

Debates are discussion activities that you are probably familiar with. It is common for some subjects to organise activities of this type for you to express your opinion on a controversial issue. In many cases there is no type of prior organisation and you can intervene one by one to give your opinion on the matter. However, debate activities in which teams are formed within the classroom to simulate a debate such as those on television are also common. Imagine that in the subject of ethics you see a film in which a person is sentenced to life imprisonment. After watching this film, your teacher could suggest a debate in which half of the class argues in favour of this type of punishment and the other half, against. This assignment of positions could correspond to your previous opinion on the subject, or not.

When organising the discussion in this way, that is, with “opposing” sides, it tends to generate the idea that there is only one correct position on the controversy. This then involves putting in place a series of argumentative strategies that seek to persuade the opposing team to change their mind. In these cases, it usually happens that the assigned position is defended from the beginning, arguing in favour of it, citing reasons and evidence that supports it, and ignoring what the other position has to say. On other occasions, in addition to defending the chosen position with arguments, it is decided to enumerate the arguments of the opposite position, without considering, evaluating or reflecting on them. In the best of cases, persuasion is sought through the rebuttal strategy. This strategy consists of defending our position firmly with arguments and discrediting the opposite opinion, explaining why it is false or not properly supported.

These strategies are not the wrong approach if the goal of the discussion is to persuade, however, they carry the belief that there is only one valid position on the topic of discussion, when, in truth, most controversial or controversial topics tend to have both advantageous and problematic aspects.

Bearing in mind the latter, discussions on controversial issues can be raised from another approach, which encourages an in-depth exploration of the different positions and the search for a solution that includes the best aspects of each position. This approach is more conducive to learning and helps us “put ourselves in the mind of the other”.

Have you ever been super convinced of something, and after listening to someone's arguments you realise that that person also says interesting things that you had not thought about? Well, in those cases it is important not to remain "anchored" in our positions, and try to reconsider our previous opinion in order to elaborate a more complex conclusion. Today we are going to learn how to do this in a discussion about a controversial topic, about which there may be conflicting opinions.

This class can also help you with the task of creating argumentative syntheses, since the processes that we are going to explain, and that are set in motion during a discussion that aims to reach an integrative conclusion, are the same as those which have to be followed to produce a written synthesis. The writing of an argumentative synthesis, if you remember, was the task that you had to do in the first session of the project. In the last session, you will do another one.

That said, I am going to tell you how we are going to work throughout this class. I am going to show you a video in which four students appear doing the discussion activity that you yourself will have to do the next day.

These students have been assigned the task of reading two texts on a controversial topic and generating a group discussion to reach an argued conclusion on the topic. To assist you in this discussion, you have been provided with a procedural guideline that details the sequence of steps you can take in the process. The group conclusion reached by these students must be communicated by the leader of the group in an upcoming discussion session, in which only the leaders will participate. The topic they read and discuss in the video is related to the area of ​​science, as were the texts that you used to make the argumentative synthesis in the first session. The students in the video must read and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of natural therapies, such as acupuncture or homeopathic.

This video is made up of different scenes, each of which is intended to illustrate a different phase or step. These phases or steps must be followed when developing a discussion with a goal of integrating positions, and when said discussion has to lead to the elaboration of a final written conclusion. The phases or steps illustrated in the video coincide with the sections in the procedural guideline.

As I have explained, these steps are illustrated in the different scenes of the video and, in turn, correspond to the sections of the procedural guideline that were given to the students. One important thing is that although the phases are presented in a certain order in the video and in the procedural guideline, they do not have to be linear. This means that when you develop the discussion yourself the next day, you will be able to re-explore the different positions when you are contrasting them, or, when reviewing the text, some of the members of the group will be able to return to the conclusion to rework it, etcetera.

So that the video can help you as much as possible, after each scene I will make a brief intervention in which I will explain what we have just seen, and at the same time that I will show you the section of the procedural guideline that corresponds to the process or step illustrated in the video.

Okay, well, having said that, let's start watching the video.

Video

Scene 1 is projected. Reading the procedural guideline

Explanation of the scene

Well, as seen in this first scene, the students begin the task after having read the instructions. You see that in the video there is a student who has been chosen as leader. The role of this student within the group is quite important. The main thing that this person has to do is make sure that, at the end of the discussion, an argued group conclusion has been generated that can be carried over to the next day, in the discussion session between leaders. This does not mean that all the burden of the discussion should fall on this person. Quite the opposite. As it is a group discussion activity, all students have to participate and contribute their opinions. What the leader has to do is ensure that the discussion is orderly, and to try to make progress in the different steps or phases of the process to elaborate the argued conclusion. Timing is essential, as at the end of the session you need to have a detailed and written group conclusion.

As you can see in the video, before starting to read the texts individually, the students take a look at the procedural guideline to get a general idea of what they will have to do throughout the activity.

The procedural guideline highlights some strategies for working collaboratively that are important for us to keep in mind. (List them).

Bearing in mind what they are going to have to do, the students have already read the texts individually, and, as you can see, they make annotations as they read them. It is good to highlight the information that we consider important and useful for discussion in the texts. Different strategies can be followed, such as underlining, making annotations in the margins, writing down the ideas on a separate sheet of paper … The important thing in this phase is trying to understand what the texts are about and assimilating the information they present in order to be able to discuss it later.

Although the students in the video first read the texts individually and then generate the discussion, when you do the task you can comment during the reading or after it. There is no single way to carry out this initial reading phase.

Time limitations mean we have not collected this episode in its entirety in the video, but you can intuit the process that the students have followed, reading individually, pointing out the arguments in the text, noting comments and observations in the margin, commenting on their impressions with their classmates … In short, you should use all the resources that you think are appropriate to make a good initial reading.

Let's see what the next step is.

Scene 2 is projected. End of reading and beginning of discussion

Explanation of the scene

As you have seen, when the students finish reading the texts, the leader begins the discussion by referring to a series of questions that appear in the procedural guideline. The questions are as follows: (the slide in the procedural guideline is projected, containing the table and the questions on the topic of discussion, etc.).

Based on these questions, the students comment on what they think the theme of the texts is and explore the opinions of the group about it, as well as whether these changed after reading.

It is very important that you ask each other questions that stimulate discussion, both those that you can find in the procedural guideline and others that help you work together, and that help you to analyse the texts and communicate the ideas you may have on the subject. Asking and answering questions will help you get a broader view of the texts by sharing your perspectives on them, and generating and sharing ideas. In this sense, the leader will have the responsibility of supervising and ensuring that the necessary questions are being asked to understand and elucidate the texts.

Similarly, the leader must also guarantee that there is no stagnation of the discussion in anecdotal information, which, may even not be directly related to the subject matter of the texts. If you noticed, there is a moment in the scene when the leader points out that the discussion is focusing too much on cancer. This type of signalling is important so that time is not wasted without having completed the task.

Scene 3 is projected. Identification of arguments and generation of the table

Explanation of the scene

As you can see, in this phase the students state the arguments that they have been identifying in the texts and cooperatively construct a table with two columns. This graphic tool helps to easily compare the information from both sources and to establish possible relationships between arguments.

Before moving on to the next phase, it is necessary to clarify that, although we saw in the scene that the students analyse the arguments of the first text and do not go on to explore Text 2 until they finish with it, this is not the only way to do that. Another possibility would be to identify the arguments of both texts at the same time.

Scene 4 is projected. List of arguments and assessment of their importance

Explanation of the scene

This scene illustrates how the students realise, thanks to the table they have just made, that some arguments in the text about the benefits of natural therapies respond to some arguments in the text about the disadvantages. This means that the students have found relationships between arguments and that it seemed important not only to mention them, but also to point them out through some mechanism. To do this, they chose the strategy of connecting the arguments that may be related to each other with arrows.

The identification of these relationships can be of great help for the elaboration of an integrating conclusion that tries to reconcile two positions which are, a priori, opposed.

Just as I could help in this search for possible relationships, it can also be useful to assess the importance of each argument. When one reads, and not only identifies the arguments, but also values and contrasts them with others, the weight of each argument may vary. This is something that is reflected in the video when one of the students makes it explicit that for him there is an argument in the text about the disadvantages of the therapies that practically nullifies any advantage they have. This assessment of the importance of the arguments is important when preparing the argued conclusion, since it can revolve around those who have the most weight.

In summary, we have seen in this phase of argument exploration how the students share what they have previously done individually. This comparison or contrast between the arguments and counterarguments that they have individually identified will enrich their understanding of the texts and the subsequent argumentation, because as we have seen, by sharing what they had done individually they exchange ideas or reasoning that they had not reached on their own. In this process of comparison, the students are connecting the arguments of both positions. This is a process that involves relating the arguments of the positions to each other and assessing their importance. They can be related because the arguments complement each other, because they are opposed and what is said in one text allows us to refute what is said in another … but we can also consider the importance and weight they have, since the latter will allow us to elaborate and structure the conclusion. The questions that appear in the procedural guideline support these two processes and the graphic resources are also a clear aid.

Scene 5 is projected. Drawing conclusions

Explanation of the scene

This is a key phase of the process, since it is necessary to find a solution that is satisfactory for all members of the group, and that at the same time integrates aspects of the two positions. In other words, everything that the students in the video have done so far must be summed up in one conclusion. This conclusion must be the result of the relationships and the assessment of the importance of the arguments that have been identified.

As we have seen in the video, the students are not writing a text as such. They simply continue the discussion to reach an integrative conclusion, considering what has been mentioned in the previous contrast phase. Now, to facilitate the later writing task, they do point out a series of things. If you remember, one of the students proposes taking notes schematically.

In order to help reach this inclusive conclusion, the procedural guideline poses some questions that point out the fundamental aspects of this phase.

Remember that it is about integrating both positions. Stating the arguments of both positions and saying that both are right is not an integration. Nor is it an integration, as we pointed out when we talked about persuasive strategies during debates, to opt for one position and argue only that, or refer to the other only to refute it.

Here we are teaching you to integrate both positions; that is, to try to find the links between the two positions, and even to draw up novel and alternative conclusions that respond to the difficulties encountered in each of them. There is no completely true or wrong opinion, and that is why we need to integrate the different positions in the final conclusion.

In the video you have been able to see one of the ways to arrive at an integrative solution: the students agree on what their position will be—to be in agreement with natural therapies—and under what conditions they will defend it, as long as they comply with a series of guarantees and medical controls, reaching a conclusion that integrates aspects of both positions.

The students could have used a consistent strategy of weighing the arguments of both positions. They could have valued arguments and counterarguments, explaining why the advantages of a position outweigh its disadvantages. In this way, what we are doing is prioritising positions, but we are not dedicated to showing that one of them is false. What we do is recognise the value of both. For example, students might begin by explaining the first argument of a position and how the opposing text refutes or counters it. In this sense, they could talk about whether natural therapies are adequate or not, assessing the support provided by both texts (the first text believes that these therapies are appropriate because they have a global approach to the person and do not focus only on symptoms … and the second text argues that they are not adequate, since they do not pass a series of controls and their long-term consequences are unknown…). In this way, they could recognise the importance of both positions, to finally opt for the most advantageous position (however, although it is true that these therapies can be beneficial because a priori they concern themselves with more general aspects of health, it is necessary to guarantee that its application does not have side effects, since they are treatments that have not passed a series of controls like the drugs we ingest do…).

A final option or strategy that we can use to build our conclusion is to come up with a completely new solution that overcomes the problems posed by the two positions and combines the advantages of both. When you develop the discussion, you will have to use these different integration strategies, which are not mutually exclusive.

A final important issue that is highlighted in the video and in the procedural guideline is the number of arguments for both positions mentioned in the conclusion. It is important that the conclusion responds to all the problems raised by both positions. This means that when an integrative solution is proposed, it has to collect all the comparisons of arguments made and the conclusion that we derive from that comparison.

Scene 6 is projected. Textualisation

The next step, as you have seen in the video, is to put in writing the conclusion that the students have reached. It is possible that the next day, when you are in this phase, you will already have part or all of the text in writing. There is no one way to do homework. As we have mentioned, in the procedural guideline and in the video, everything appears in a very linear way, but in fact, it does not have to be that way.

Perhaps when you write, you realise that you are not so sure about what you originally agreed. This is normal, because when we write, our ideas can change. Writing helps us learn, and is a decision-making process that affects the content and form of texts.

The questions in the procedural guideline are intended to help us make these decisions:

In what order are we going to present the argument? First arguments and then counterarguments or do we insert them?).

In the video, the students had to make decisions about the order or structure to follow before writing, or how to write the ideas. To do this, they have been expressing their opinion of what they think is the best way to write the conclusion they have reached. They have explained how they usually approach this task when they do it individually and have agreed on what the main message of the conclusion had to be and on how to structure the text.

This situation of agreement does not have to occur in all cases. The good thing about working in a group in this phase is that it facilitates the way that, when writing, we have to make explicit the ideas that we want to capture in the text to see if they are shared within the group. Based on the information that we put "on the table", we can detect incongruities that must be resolved between all of us. The message that we want to convey in the text is thus collectively elaborated.

Scene 7 is projected. Revision

As can be seen in the video, the students make a final review of the written product they have generated. In this way, they make sure that they have integrated everything that they had agreed to include in the text, and, in addition, they check that they agree with the message in the conclusion. This is important, because in the next session the leader will convey the opinion of the group and it is necessary that it be shared and understandable.

When we talk about proofreading, we often dwell too much on questions of grammar or syntax. This is important because the text has to be legible, however, we must not forget that the group's position is clear, or that the conclusion includes the agreed arguments and that these have been duly supported.

The procedural guideline contains a series of questions that can help with this final review (Is your position clear? Are all the arguments there? Are they convincing? etc.).

Appendix 2: procedural guideline

Steps of the process collected in the procedural guideline

Positions on the topic

You will find a table and some questions that could help you identify and organise the different positions in the debate and the arguments used by each of them.

• What is the subject of the debate?

• What previous opinion did you have about debate? Has this changed?

• What are the different points of view on this issue?

Comparison of positions

Below, you will find some guidelines and questions that will help you compare the different positions.

Conclusion of the controversy

Here are some questions that could help you draw a conclusion about the controversy:

• Is there a position that has more weight? Why?

• Is there a way to reconcile the two positions? Why? Is there a new alternative that integrates the different positions?

• Is there a position where its strength depends on certain conditions being met?

• Have you thought of a conclusion that compares various arguments from both positions? Does this conclusion answer several of the problems raised by the different positions?

Have you come to any conclusions after reflecting on these questions? Have you reached any conclusions after reflecting on these questions?

Writing the text

Here are some questions that could help you organise your ideas:

• In what order are you going to present the argument? In the previous order, first the arguments and then the counterarguments, jumping from one to the other, inserting them …?

• Is it better to start with the strongest argument or to leave it until the end?

• Do we need to repeat our point of view at the end?

Have you answered these questions to organise your ideas?

Review of the text

Finally, you will find some questions that could help you to review and self-evaluate your text during writing and when you have finished it:

• Is our position clear?

• Do all the arguments that we have thought justify our conclusion?

• Are they convincing, and are they justified with good reasons?

• Are all the ideas well linked? Is it clear how all the sentences in the text relate to each other?

• When you have reviewed any part of the text, has it been ambiguous?

• Is there any spelling, syntactic errors, etc.?

Have you used these questions to review and self-evaluate your text?

Appendix 3: Read the following text by Elvira Lindo and answer the questions

It is increasingly common to share a table with people who think that they must inform you of the nutrients contained in each food on the plate. If you ask for sardines they remind you of their high Omega-3 content; if it is broccoli then how to ignore its anticancer properties; if it is eaten with tea (more and more frequent) its antioxidant and diuretic potential is celebrated; if the salad has nuts, the energy power and the cardiovascular benefits are mentioned; if it is salmon, you have to remember that with each bite we are kicking bad cholesterol; kale seasoned with a little oil is not fattening, satiates and nourishes like no other cabbage; if we prepare a white omelette, only with egg whites, we get rid of that which contributes nothing and only makes us fat, and so on, ad infinitum. I confess, I can't handle that much.

I am outraged by this tendency to judge food by erasing any hedonistic or social aspect, which ultimately surely has a more decisive effect on well-being than the strict relationship of its properties. I read that the cool creatives of Silicon Valley are enthusiastic about some powders called Soylent that, mixed with water, prevent you from having the bad taste of eating a plate of food as God intended. Soylent is a nutritional compound that was designed in 2003 by a software engineer in order to save money and not waste time in either the preparation of food nor in that precious half hour that goes into consuming it. This diet, which is taken with a straw and means the executive does not have to look away from the computer, is not accepted by science as a substitute for food, but there are modernists who are embracing it with enthusiasm. I believe that it is nothing more than a lack of respect towards those who do not have food to put in their mouth.

Elvira Lindo

• 1. What is the subject of the text?

• 2. What does the word ‘hedonist’ mean? If you don't know it, try to define it according to the linguistic context in which it is used.

• 3. What is the function of the “Soylent” product?

• 4. What does the author think about current eating trends?

• 5. What are the characteristics of the language of the text? Where could we find a text like this?

• 6. If you had to propose a title for the writing, what would it be?

Read the following text by Jose Confuso and complete the activities

The summer of influencers. Sorry, the influencers' summer, now you have to say everything in English. As if it were a bad dream, one of those naps under the umbrella after having eaten a paella watered with sangria, summer filled us with scholars, enlightened technology, magicians of social networks. They call themselves influencers and presume to create a school, to mobilise the masses, to raise the people against the gentrification of styling. They raise their fists and conquer a Zara. They are the low-cost Marx. The Che Guevara of trends. But with a beret. Or a straw borsalino, which is very hot.

But what the hell is an influencer? That is what many of us have been wondering for years. Thanks to the premiere of programs like Quiero ser, the fashion talent show hosted by Sara Carbonero, the public has approached a phenomenon that has us saturated. An influencer is nothing more than a fashion lover — see, buy clothes and put them on—who lives by accumulating followers on social networks thanks to their innate ability to combine clothes and, fundamentally, look handsome in photos. The art of cheek biting. Zoolanders of life who started a blog when they began to emerge and now act as kings of the show.

But #beware, what seems like just a hobby is a more than beneficial livelihood. As soon as you hang up an influencer label—don't call them bloggers, they don't like it anymore—brands go crazy to send you gifts and promotional samples. And you, of course, overjoyed, run to share them on your social networks, praising their benefits and encouraging your thousands of followers to do the same. And all for your pretty face! Well, and for a substantial amount of money if the number of followers allows it—more Ks, more euros.

Such is the volume of product placement that even the US government has decided to get involved in the matter. The Federal Competition Commission has announced that it will require influencers to clearly identify posts sponsored by brands. And it won't do to sneak the hashtags #ad or #sponsored into a cloud of thirty-five tags at the end of each image on Instagram. Business is faltering. Where now is that spontaneity, that natural impudence, that connection with the common people that the kings of the selfie promise?

Far from transmitting the real functioning of the fashion industry, the influencer phenomenon has only served to create monsters. We have made an entire generation believe that you don't have to do anything to succeed in life. Just put on some clothes, take four photos, and upload them to Instagram. Live the millennial dream. And the worst thing is that they are right. Now even my beloved mother knows what an it girl is. I fear the day that I discover Instagram stories and fill my timeline with videos of making faces. "Do you know what contouring is?" he asks me. And, of course, my soul falls to my feet. I will never forgive you, Paula Echevarría. Never.

Jose Confuso

• 1. What is the author's intention? Mark the answer that you consider the most correct with an X.

  • a. Inform about a new profession related to fashion.

  • b. List the different advantages of being an influencer.

  • c. Criticise the impact that the influencers' way of life is having on young people.

• 2. Complete the following table with words extracted from the text (3 of each type):

  

• 3. Answer the following questions:

  • e. What references to historical figures appear in the writing?

  • f. Identify an expression in the text that means “to produce sadness”.

  • g. What differences and similarities do you find between this text and the text by Elvira Lindo (subject, language, target audience, etc.)? Did you experience the same sensations when reading them? Why?

  • h. If you had to propose a title for the writing, what would it be?