Using Discourse to Improve the Quality of Student Talk and Historical Argumentative Writing

Abstract

Frameworks that connect to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in Social Studies, such as the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies States Standards, highlight the need to engage in inquiry-based instruction (NCSS, 2013). Participation in such inquiry requires students to engage in disciplinary thinking and to articulate that thinking to others, both verbally and in writing. However, such disciplinary thinking does not come natural to students (Wineburg, 1991). Thus, students require instruction in disciplinary thinking to learn its complexities and nuances. Once students can engage in disciplinary thinking, they can communicate it and participate in valuable discourse. Therefore, the current dissertation was conducted to explore how students use discourse to engage in argumentation and historical thinking. Chapter 2 of the dissertation is a research synthesis of studies that use discourse to improve learning outcomes in primary and secondary science and social studies classrooms. The purpose of the synthesis was to determine the impact of argumentative discourse on students’ learning outcomes and to understand the instructional components teachers use when holding discourse. Asterhan & Schwarz’s (2016) Argumentation for Learning (AFL) framework guided the research synthesis and the subsequent multiple-case study. Results indicate that discourse can be improved by using multiple instructional groupings, incorporating explicit instruction, modeling, graphic organizers and technology, and engaging students in deliberation. Chapter 3 offers findings from a multiple-case study that was designed to explore how argumentation inhibitors and enablers moderate dialogue characteristics and learning outcomes and to provide a rich description of discourse in ninth-grade US History classrooms with academically diverse students. More specifically, the study captured how students engaged in argumentative discourse and historical thinking using two different discourse structures. The study used a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2018) to compare the discourse across three cases. Each case included a teacher and four students. The first case occurred in a co-taught class, the second case included the same teacher in an honors class, and the third case included a different teacher in an honors class. The first and second case used a modified structured academic controversy (SAC), while the third case used Johnson and Johnson’s (1988) approach to SAC. The multiple-case study and the research synthesis informed the practitioner manuscript provided in Chapter 4. The manuscript details how teachers can use structure and supports to improve student participation and historical thinking in classroom discourse, especially for students with disabilities (SWD) and other struggling learners. The current dissertation provides several important findings. First, my synthesis indicated that students achieve higher learning outcomes when teachers use multiple instructional groupings, students engage in deliberative discourse, and teachers provide students with explicit instruction, modeling, and graphic organizers. Second, the findings from the multiple-case study offered insight into how students of differing academic abilities engage in argumentative discourse and historical thinking. Students of all academic abilities participated at high levels and engaged in deliberative argumentation, though there were differences in the quality of historical thinking skills. The instructional approach used in the multiple-case study is further expanded in the practitioner manuscript. Areas for future research are discussed in the dissertation.