Teaching Argumentation. Julia A. Simms
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Teaching Argumentation - Julia A. Simms страница 2
![Teaching Argumentation - Julia A. Simms Teaching Argumentation - Julia A. Simms What Principals Need to Know](/cover_pre679436.jpg)
Chapter 5: Rapid Fire
Setup
Play
Clues for Rapid Fire
Chapter 6: Which One Doesn’t Belong?
Setup
Play
Clues for Which One Doesn’t Belong?
Chapter 7: Text Evidence Bingo
Setup
Play
Sample Bingo Board Items for Text Evidence Bingo
Student Bingo Board for Text Evidence Bingo
Chapter 8: Rhetoric Memory
Setup
Play
Match Sets for Rhetoric Memory
Chapter 9: Claim Capers
Setup
Play
Detective’s Evidence Organizer
Chapter 10: Convince the Crowd
Setup
Play
Student Panelist Organizer for Convince the Crowd
Appendix A: Facts and Opinions
Appendix B: Claims
References and Resources
Index
About the Authors
Katie Rogers is the production editor for Marzano Research Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, where she writes and edits books and research reports. She has experience teaching at the middle school level, mentoring students at the college level, and writing in a variety of areas, including main-page copy for university websites, marketing materials, and a contribution to TEDxMileHigh. She holds a bachelor of arts degree in sociology from Colorado College, where she developed a strong interest in social theory and education research.
Julia A. Simms is director of publications for Marzano Research Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. She has worked in K–12 education as a classroom teacher, gifted education specialist, teacher leader, and coach, and her books include Coaching Classroom Instruction, Using Common Core Standards to Enhance Classroom Instruction and Assessment, Vocabulary for the Common Core, Questioning Sequences in the Classroom, and A Handbook for High Reliability Schools. She has led school- and district-level professional development on a variety of topics, including literacy instruction and intervention, classroom and school-wide differentiation, and instructional technology. She received her bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, and her master’s degrees in educational administration and K–12 literacy from Colorado State University and the University of Northern Colorado, respectively.
About Marzano Research Laboratory
Marzano Research Laboratory (MRL) is a joint venture between Solution Tree and Dr. Robert J. Marzano. MRL combines Dr. Marzano’s forty years of educational research with continuous action research in all major areas of schooling in order to provide effective and accessible instructional strategies, leadership strategies, and classroom assessment strategies that are always at the forefront of best practice. By providing such an all-inclusive research-into-practice resource center, MRL provides teachers and principals with the tools they need to effect profound and immediate improvement in student achievement.
Foreword
In 1984, I attended an invitational conference at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin. The purpose of the gathering was to ask interested educators how to best contribute to the burgeoning interest in teaching thinking skills. Although many possibilities were suggested (and many came to fruition), six other educators and I were particularly involved in the development of a framework and curriculum designed to enhance students’ thinking and reasoning skills.
The centerpiece of both our framework and the curriculum materials was argumentation. Skills such as observing, formulating questions, comparing, classifying, analyzing, identifying errors, inferring, and drawing conclusions formed the backbone of our work. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s we interacted with thousands of teachers and students in hundreds of schools, helping them to better understand the complex processes associated with argumentation and other thinking processes and skills.
One memory from this time is particularly powerful for me. While studying World War II, a teacher asked his students to make inferences regarding how the Nazis could have justified the killing of millions of Jewish people simply because of their race and ancestry. Students compiled a vast amount of information and observations: quotes from Mein Kampf, excerpts from letters, examples of Nazi propaganda, and so on. Observations and information covered the walls of the classroom. As the teacher guided his students through the process of classifying, comparing, analyzing, and examining their collected information, students generated a particularly powerful conclusion: the heart of prejudicial thinking is sound reasoning from untrue premises. This conclusion expressed what had happened in Nazi Germany during World War II so eloquently and so clearly that I have remembered it ever since.
This story was not an isolated incident. During the two decades I spent training teachers and leaders to implement direct instruction in thinking, reasoning, and argumentation skills, I was consistently astounded by the effects of this type of instruction on students. Free, critical, and creative thought is a bedrock of our society, and it made perfect sense to provide direct instruction in this kind of thinking in our schools. Unfortunately, as often happens in education, the thinking skills movement eventually waned as other topics and issues came to the forefront of research and policy. Such a powerful movement seemed to have been cut short before its time.
Not surprisingly, then, I was delighted to see the renewed emphasis on argumentation and thinking skills in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Throughout the college and career readiness, mathematical practice, and English language arts and mathematics content standards, students are asked to analyze arguments, present claims, construct support, explain relationships between argument elements, identify errors in reasoning, evaluate rhetoric, and so on. These foundational skills were powerful twenty years ago and are still powerful today.
With this renewed awareness of the importance of argumentation comes a need for