life, it seems obvious that argumentation should be a central feature of 21st century schools.
However, some individuals have warned against the inclusion of controversial issues in the classroom, particularly among younger students (Norwood, 1943; Scruton, Ellis-Jones, & O’Keefe, 1985; Totten, 1999). Classroom discussions about controversial public issues are scarce (Hahn, 1991; Kahne, Rodriguez, Smith, & Thiede, 2000; Shaver, Davis, & Helburn, 1978), and controversial discussions of any kind rarely occur in social studies classrooms (Nystrand, Gamoran, & Carbonaro, 1998). This may be because some teachers feel uncomfortable or unprepared to facilitate them (Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Shulz, 2001). Hess (2011) pointed out:
Many teachers want to create environments in which students feel safe, valued, and respected. Controversial issues, by their very nature, can create passionate responses. This passion often degenerates into silence, anger, disrespect, and name-calling—the very opposite of the interactions teachers hope to promote. . . . Faced with this choice, many opt for respect over passion and avoid heated discussions. But teachers don’t have to make this choice. It is possible to talk about controversial issues in civil and productive ways so that students bring a healthy amount of passion to the classroom without treating one another harshly. (p. 70)
We agree that avoiding controversy in the classroom is not an effective way to prepare students for democratic life. Although avoiding disagreements may be easier in some cases, such practices fail to train students to participate effectively in society. Moreover, they neglect to equip students with the college and career readiness skills outlined in the CCSS.
Argumentation and the Common Core
Argumentation in the classroom has experienced a renewed emphasis with the advent of the CCSS, which defined argument as “a reasoned, logical way of demonstrating that the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 23). The CCSS “put particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues” (NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 24) and cited a number of sources to support this emphasis (ACT, 2009; Graff, 2004; Milewski, Johnson, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005; Postman, 1997). To be college and career ready, the CCSS stated that students should be able to:
Construct effective arguments and convey intricate or multifaceted information. . . . They comprehend as well as critique. . . . They work diligently to understand precisely what an author or speaker is saying, but they also question an author’s or speaker’s assumptions and premises and assess the veracity of claims and the soundness of reasoning. . . . Students cite specific evidence when offering an oral or written interpretation of a text. They use relevant evidence when supporting their own points in writing and speaking, making their reasoning clear to the reader or listener, and they constructively evaluate others’ use of evidence. (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 7)
As with many standards statements, the one quoted here and others in the CCSS contain many different elements of knowledge and skill that students are expected to master. To identify specific argumentation skills that could be the subject of direct instruction and practice, we conducted an analysis of the CCSS.
In our analysis, we first identified those CCSS that relate to argumentation. In addition to the college and career readiness standards quoted previously, a number of English language arts (ELA) content standards and one standard for mathematical practice address argumentation. Second, we examined each standard to identify the components of argumentation within it. For example, in the previous quote (page 3) from the college and career readiness standards, students are expected to construct effective arguments, convey intricate or multifaceted information, comprehend arguments, critique arguments, understand precisely what an author or speaker is saying, question an author or speaker’s assumptions, and so on. After identifying these components, we grouped them into thirteen overarching argumentation skills, each of which is robust enough to be the subject of direct instruction and student practice. These thirteen overarching skills are listed and described in table I.1.
Table I.1: Argumentation Skills From the CCSS
| Distinguishing fact from opinion involves discriminating between statements that are observably true and statements that express personal beliefs. |
| Presenting and supporting claims involves generating an assertion and providing evidence to back it up. |
| Explaining the relationship between claims, grounds, and backing involves clarifying exactly how a piece of evidence supports a claim. |
| Organizing an argument involves arranging claims, grounds, and backing in a logical order. |
| Citing textual evidence involves using specific quotations or information from a text to support a claim. |
| Distinguishing a claim from alternate or opposing claims involves using precise language to refine the meaning of a claim or to make it more specific. |
| Making inductive inferences involves forming reasonable guesses based on observations and background knowledge. |
| Distinguishing connotation from denotation involves recognizing different implications or nuances among words with similar definitions (such as aroma and stench). |
| Evaluating persuasive rhetoric involves determining a writer or speaker’s motive based on connotation, emphasis, tone, and figurative language, as well as judging whether these elements were used to mislead. |
| Identifying errors in reasoning involves analyzing a claim or evidence to decide whether it is logical. |
| Identifying insufficient or irrelevant evidence involves analyzing evidence to decide whether it adequately supports a claim. |
| Perspective taking involves recognizing the reasoning behind various (and sometimes conflicting) viewpoints on an issue. |
| Communicating responsibly involves taking the initiative to create and maintain a positive interaction through constructive words, actions, and behaviors. |
Table I.2 (pages 5–13) shows the argumentation-related CCSS we identified and the overarching skill(s) associated with each standard.
Table I.2: Argumentation-Related Standards and Associated Overarching Skills
In
