argumentation in the classroom. Although various programs are rapidly becoming available, teachers who are already pressed for time may not be able to carve out the additional hours these types of curricula require. For this reason, I strongly support the authors’ efforts in this book to provide clear, concise, concrete guidance to teachers about specific argumentation skills from the CCSS, how to teach them in concert with the content students are already required to learn, and how to reinforce them through fun, engaging activities and games.
Rogers and Simms have created an accessible, research-based resource that teachers can use on a daily basis in their classrooms. They’ve prepared everything teachers will need: a wealth of examples, items, templates, and other resources so that each skill is ready to teach and every game is ready to play. Busy teachers will appreciate the authors’ attention to detail and their awareness of the bigger context of the classroom, the CCSS, and the unique needs and situations of teachers, students, and schools. I highly recommend this book to all K–12 educators and look forward to seeing educators take direct instruction in argumentation to new levels of implementation.
—Robert J. Marzano
Introduction
In 1644, John Milton presented a speech to the English parliament condemning government censorship. In it, he defended the right of citizens to argue with each other, asserting that people must argue in order to learn. “Where there is much desire to learn,” he wrote, “there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.” Argument has always been central to learning and life in society. However, the 21st century has created opportunities for controversial discussion and debate in more places and in more ways than Milton probably could have ever imagined.
With the growth of the Internet, opportunities to engage in argumentation have increased considerably. Online forums, social networks, and the comment sections of news websites provide space for debate and discussion about a variety of topics (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2013; Gil de Zúñiga & Valenzuela, 2011; Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2007; Papacharissi, 2004). Political discussions on the Internet attract participants who are often underrepresented in politics, such as people of color, women, and young adults (Correa & Jeong, 2010; McCaughey & Ayers, 2003; Mossberger et al., 2007). This finding is particularly salient when one considers the importance of discussion within the democratic process: when people discuss political issues, they are more likely to take political action in elections and other political events (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995; Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005; Wyatt, Katz, & Kim, 2000).
Although online debate may encourage individuals to participate in argumentation, it does not inherently prepare them to do so effectively. Internet discussions are notorious for eliciting heated, irrational, and even uncivil interactions (Papacharissi, 2004; Shils, 1992). As is similarly the case in offline discussions, individuals sometimes interpret challenges to their online claims as personal attacks, which can lead them to react defensively or even lash out at others. The tendency of users to take online arguments personally has been repeatedly satirized on humor websites such as Cracked.com (2010; Christina H, 2012) and xkcd (2008a; 2008b). Some have speculated that the option to post anonymously does not hold users accountable for rudeness or insensitivity in their comments (Hlavach & Freivogel, 2011; Kling, Lee, Teich, & Frankel, 1999). In fact, the prevalence of offensive and irrational comments in online forums has prompted some websites—such as Popular Science—to close their comment sections entirely (LaBarre, 2013).
In addition to being unsavory, the sometimes hostile nature of online debate may have implications for the democratic process. Bill Reader (2012) pointed out that “with online forums, the gatekeeping has largely disappeared—anybody can post a comment in any manner and on any topic, often without any prescreening by editors” (p. 496). In some ways, the absence of “gatekeeping” can be good for democratic discussion. However, research suggests that online incivility can actually influence the way people think about issues. A study from the University of Wisconsin–Madison indicated that people’s perceptions and opinions about the subject matter of an article became more ingrained after they read uncivil comments, even if they did not have much knowledge or an opinion about the topic beforehand (Anderson et al., 2013).
Furthermore, despite their apparent interest in online politics, eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-old citizens in the U.S. demonstrate “shockingly low levels of political knowledge and information” (Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco, 2007, p. 1094). Results from the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated that only one-quarter of high school seniors showed at least a proficient level of civics knowledge, even though many of them were old enough to vote (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). Tony Wagner (2008), the Innovation Education Fellow at the Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard, put it this way:
Students can always look up when the Battle of Gettysburg took place, or who General Sherman was, but they can’t just Google the causes of the Civil War and make sense of what comes up on the screen. To understand such an issue, you have to know how to think critically, and you need a broader conceptual understanding of American history, economics, and more. (p. 263)
Fortunately, students do not need to rely on Internet message boards to learn to think critically, debate constructively, or become informed citizens. Teachers can help students develop argumentation skills through direct, comprehensive, and ongoing instruction in argumentation. Such instruction prepares students to meet the cognitive and interpersonal demands of life in a democratic society (such as the United States) and is a crucial requirement of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d).
Argumentation and Democratic Life
In the 1980s, education researcher Carole Hahn explored the relationship between classroom climate, controversial discussions, and the resulting political attitudes of students. In her study of adolescents in five different nations (England, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States), Hahn (1998) found that students who discussed controversial public policy issues in safe, open, and respectful environments were more likely to develop the skills needed for life in a democracy. Specifically, students who were encouraged to express opinions and explore alternate perspectives in school were more likely to:
Spencer Foundation Vice President Diana Hess (2011) has insisted that educators have a responsibility to prepare students for respectful, authentic discussions about public policy. “A democracy without controversial issues,” she wrote, “is like an ocean without fish or a symphony without sound” (p. 69). Paula Cowan and Henry Maitles (2012) agreed, adding that “there must be space in the classroom to discuss socially or politically sensitive issues, whether they be local issues relating to bullying, racism, homophobia and animal welfare, or such international events as the 2003 Iraq War, terrorism or globalization” (p. 5). Given the pervasiveness of controversy
