A powerpoint presentation on recent research and tools for assessing student argument writing.

1. Susan Golab, literacy consultant
Oakland Schools
Waterford, Michigan
ASSESSING ARGUMENT

2. IN THE BEGINNING…

3. When teachers’ instruction and
formative assessment practices are
undergirded by learning progressions,
teachers can better use formative
assessment to map where individual
student’s learning currently stands
and take steps to move him forward.
Formative Assessment in Practice ~ Margaret Heritage, Pg. 37

4. Visible Learning: A Synthesis
of over 800 Meta-Analyses
Relating to Achievement
 John Hattie: Routledge, 2009
RESEARCH-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL
APPROACH

5. AND THEN CAME ELI…
Professor Jeff Grabill,
MSU WIDE Co-Director

6. TEACHERS AS RESEARCHERS

7. Research Questions:
1. To what extent can students learn to become more effective reviewers?
2. What do students learn about writing from reviewing?
3. To what extent can student learn to become more effective revisers?
4. What do students learn about writing from revision?

9. http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/swrp/

10. THERE MAY BE NO SUCH THING
AS “ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING”
Who writes, reads, and has a stake in
argumentative writing? Informational writing?
Nobody

11. THERE MAY BE NO SUCH THING
AS “ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING”
Writers argue, persuade, summarize, analyze
… in a range of situations
Writers make arguments for all sorts of
reasons, with and for audiences, using the
genres and evidence necessary

12. THE NEW RHETORIC
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, in a treatise
on argumentation, shift immediately to
persuasion [1958/1969]
Foreground audience
Also deal explicitly with ambiguity and
uncertainty (rhetoric is the domain of the
uncertain; science the certain)

13. ANCIENT RHETORIC FOR
MODERN STUDENTS: SOURCES
OF ARGUMENTS
Ethos (character of speaker); Pathos (emotions
of the audience); Logos (arguments residing in
the issue at hand): intrinsic to rhetoric
Modern rhetoric reduces its focus to empirical
evidence (“facts”) and expert testimony:
extrinsic to rhetoric

14. ANCIENT RHETORIC FOR MODERN
STUDENTS: SOURCES OF ARGUMENTS
Belief isn’t a function of “logic” or reason alone
Belief is also a function of emotion, values,
identity, community …

15. ANCIENT RHETORIC FOR MODERN
STUDENTS: SOURCES OF ARGUMENTS
Where I am going with this …
Rhetorical issues and situations are those about
which there is disagreement and uncertainty
Inventing ideas begins with that uncertainty,
with audiences, their communities, and beliefs
… and addresses them in order to change belief

16. AND SO …
How does one begin to argue/persuade without
audience?
Audience is a resource for invention
Argument/persuasion is inauthentic in situations of
certainty—where all we ask students to do is “deploy
facts”
Argument/persuasion begins with belief and explores
uncertainty to shape belief

17. WHAT DO YOU SEE?
Table groups…
1.Look across the provided rubrics
2. Highlight where you see any reference
to audience
3. What do you notice?

21. CREATING A DEVELOPMENTAL
CONTINUUM
MOVES Scores Anchor Moves
Major Claim A score of 3:
 Claim is explicitly and clearly stated
A score of 2:
 Claim is partially stated or unfocused
A score of 1:
 Claim is confusing
A score of 0:
 Claim is missing
3: “I think the use of cell phones in a
school should not only be allowed, but it
should be encouraged”
2: “smart phones can be used for such
great things in the class room”
1: “I believe that smart phones can be good
if they’re used for the right reasons”

22. MOVES STUDIED
MOVES Scores Anchor Moves
Major Claim
Counterclaims
Use and Reasoning with
Evidence
Use of Values appropriate
for audience
Use of affect appropriate
to audience
Implications
Conclusion
A score of 3:
A score of 2:
A score of 1:
A score of 0:

23. Use of Values
appropriate for
audience
A score of 3:
 Appropriately and explicitly uses ethical language such as
“should” or audience or community norms (“we believe;” “people
think”) or ethical examples as a form of reasoning appropriate for
the audience.
A score of 2:
 Uses language or examples based on values, or norms with some
connection to audience or community norms appropriate for the
audience.
A score of 1:
 Language or examples based on values or norms are confusing
or inappropriate
A score of 0:
 No use of ethical language or values
3: “Using their cell phone to get homework
done in school not only benefits them, it
benefits the school as a community. A
school’s foundation is its community and if
people aren’t getting involved then the
community is shot”
2: “cell phones can help us
students be more connected to our teachers”
“students will have to do the right thing”
1: “…can be good and bad…”
“teachers complain about…”
Use of affect
appropriate to
audience
A score of 3:
 Consistently (3+ times) and appropriately uses direct emotional
language (such as humor, punctuation, emoticons) as form of
reasoning appropriate for the audience
A score of 2:
 Appropriately uses direct emotional language
A score of 1:
 No use of audience
A score of 0:
 Use of affect is inappropriate for the audience
1: “I feel that…” or “I know that…” (flat use of
affect, no affect)
0: “I think it’s cool” (inappropriate use for
audience)

24. ARTIFACT STUDY
STEP 1
Each participant shares artifact.
 What was the task?
 What reasoning do you see in the artifact?
 What would be qualities of the reasoning you do find?
STEP 2
As a table…
 Sort the artifacts into a continuum of reasoning from
basic to developed.
 Have a table member record the continuum into the
Google Community