(PDF) Developing Argument Writing Developing Argument Writing through Evidence-Based Responses to Student-Generated Questions (2

Wolfram Verlaan, Verlaan, Ortlieb, andEvan Ortlieb, Verlaan and Sue | Developing Oakes Writing Argument Verlaan page 34 Developing Argument Writing through Evidence-Based Responses to Student-Generated Questions A lthough English teachers may supporting that response with evidence from that debate many things related to same and/or other texts. Unfortunately, the prioritization of reading instruction, few will deny the in many of the NCLB-mandated statewide ELA 2 challenges and complexities involved in tests has contributed to an environment in which successfully teaching the elements of argu- increasingly less time has been devoted to writing ment, such as crafting a thesis statement, instruction throughout the elementary and mid- finding relevant evidence to support one’s dle grades (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Moller, Cheek, Ortlieb, & Steward, 2012). Consequent- claims, connecting the evidence with ly, secondary teachers who have taught some the claims one is making in support of form of “argument paper” are often confronted the thesis statement, and creating a final with a wide range of student preparedness for product that correctly employs the appro- such an assignment. The purpose of this article is to describe a writing assignment with which the priate grammar, syntax, and transitions. authors have had ongoing success. Not only does Nonetheless, the Common Core State Standards this assignment contribute to the development of (CCSS) (National Governors Association, 2010) the building blocks of argument, it can also be signal the importance of crafting an argument in adapted to a wide range of grade levels. the first of the College and Career Readiness An- chor Standards for Writing: “Write arguments Student-Generated Questions to support claims in an analysis of substantive One of the more significant challenges in lead- topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant ing students to write meaningful text responses is and sufficient evidence.” ensuring that they have comprehended what they have read. Duke and Pearson (2002) identify six It is no coincidence that this Standard is a logical complement to the first Anchor Standard research-based strategies that can be employed 3 for Reading: “Read closely to determine what the to develop student comprehension: predic- text says explicitly and to make logical inferences tion/prior knowledge, think-aloud, text struc- from it; cite specific textual evidence when writ- ture, visual representations, summarization, and ing or speaking to support conclusions drawn questions/questioning. Of these six strategies, from the text.” Indeed, not only do we find grad- teaching students how to effectively question a uated versions of these two Anchor Standards in text is important not only to developing compre- the grade level CCSS beginning in early elemen- hension (Ciardiello, 1998; Graesser, Ozuru, & tary school, most if not all of the academic writ- Sullins, 2010; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rosen- ing that students will eventually be required to shine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996; Rothstein & do involves developing a response to a text and Santana, 2011; Yopp, 1988), but also to develop- Copyright © 2014 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved. Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 3, March 2014 Verlaan, Ortlieb, and Verlaan | Developing Argument Writing page ing a basis for writing an argument. Writing an questions, developing this skill will benefit both 35 argument involves answering one or more ex- their reading and writing. plicit and/or implicit questions, such as “Do you agree or disagree with . . .?” or “What evidence Having Students Answer Their supports your claim that . . .?” Own Questions Teaching questioning of a text is not new. Raphael’s framework for the Question-Answer- The assignment that connected the reading and writing CCSS Anchor Standards involved having 4 Relationship (QAR) (Raphael, 1984, 1986) students answer think and search questions that provides a helpful guide for teaching and catego- they had generated. The participants included rizing different question types, including right 112 students distributed there questions (answers can be found directly in across five sections of Instructing students how to the text, as in “what, when, and where?”), think a seventh-grade ELA and search questions (answers require inferences distinguish between these class with a demographic that piece together different parts of the text, composition that was ap- question types and how to such as “why?” and “how?”), and on my own ques- proximately 45% His- tions (answers require some background knowl- generate their own ques- panic, 40% White, 10% edge or experience on the part of the reader, even Asian, and 5% African tions about a text helps though the question may have been prompted by American. Results from textual material). lay the foundation for the Renaissance Learning’s Instructing students how to distinguish be- 3 tween these question types and how to gener- Standardized Test of construction of effective Assessment of Read- ate their own questions about a text helps lay responses to a text. ing (STAR) indicated the foundation for the construction of effective that students’ reading responses to a text (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & abilities ranged from below grade level (GEs of Billman, 2011). The think and search question upper-4th/lower-5th grade) to late high school type is especially important. There are at least (GEs of 11th/12th grade). Teacher observations three ways that this question type provides a crit- of student reading behavior over the course of ical link between the reading and writing Anchor the school year combined with analysis of re- Standards mentioned previously. First, generat- sponses from the students’ reading logs suggest- ing a think and search question often requires the ed that student interest in reading ranged from kind of close reading that is referred to in the first those who really enjoyed it to those who could be Reading Anchor Standard; students will typically characterized as reluctant readers. have to inspect a text closely to generate a ques- The text chosen for this lesson was “The tion that is neither a right there question nor an Scarlet Ibis,” a story by James Hurst set in the on my own question. Second, answering a think southern part of the United States during World and search question effectively also requires close War I. The narrator recalls his past with his reading because students will almost always have younger brother, nicknamed “Doodle,” who was to reread passages one or more times to collect the born partially disabled. Knowing that most of information required to answer these inferential the students had siblings, we felt this would help questions. Third, writing an effective response to them connect to this story and that the themes a think and search question will typically require in the story—the frustrations of sibling relation- students to justify and provide evidence for their ships, the tragic consequences of cruelty, and the answers, which is the type of writing that is ad- importance of acceptance—would be apropos dressed in the first Writing Anchor Standard. Al- and meaningful to young adolescents. though it may take some time to help students Prior to this assignment, students had already acquire proficiency in generating think and search practiced identifying and generating different Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 3, March 2014 Verlaan, Ortlieb, and Verlaan | Developing Argument Writing page 36 question types and had become somewhat famil- the student will have an easy time answering it; iar with what constituted a right there question indeed, the student will almost invariably have to and a think and search question. What really drove reread parts of the text (“read closely”) to craft an this particular assign- 1 adequate written response to the question. Involving students in shaping ment was that students On the first day of the assignment, stu- would be answering dents read “The Scarlet Ibis” while listening to the assignment increased their their own questions; an audio recording of the story. Reading While motivation to engage with involving students in Listening (RWL) has been shown to improve 3 the text, which is especially shaping the assign- ment increased their 3 comprehension for struggling readers at both the elementary and secondary levels (Ortlieb, important to reading achieve- motivation to engage Grandstaff-Beckers, & Cheek, 2012; Reitsma, with the text, which is 1988; Verlaan & Ortlieb, 2012). After students ment in middle level students. especially important finished reading the story, they were given time to reading achieve- to write down one to three think and search ques- ment in middle level students (Alvermann, 2002; tions about the text. Each student was then asked Ciardiello, 2007; Doepker & Ortlieb, 2011; to share one question, which was immediately Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Kamil, 2003; Ortlieb typed into a Word document projected onto a & Doepker, 2011). In addition, it is during the screen in the classroom. Seeing and hearing each question-generation portion of the assignment other’s questions as each was added to the pro- that the first CCSS Reading Anchor Standard is jected question list motivated the students while reinforced by students having to “read closely” to also providing reinforcement of details regarding distinguish between what is stated explicitly and the story’s plot and characters. what can be inferred via textual evidence. When While many student-generated questions students develop think and search questions about will match the level of quality and depth of those a text, they are locating those points of compre- designed by a teacher, not every student will hension that require them to make inferences generate an adequate think and search question. from various details of the text. In other words, Consequently, teachers may have to spend some they have taken the first step toward successful time at the end of the school day culling what text analysis. But it is worth noting that just be- they believe are the questions most suited to the cause a student may have generated a meaning- goals for the activity. For the purposes of this ful think and search question does not mean that assignment, 20 questions were selected from all CONNECTIONS FROM READWRITETHINK Active Reading and the Student-Made Quiz “Active Reading through Self-Assessment: The Student-Made Quiz,” a recurring lesson from ReadWriteThink.org, encour- ages students to comprehend their reading through inquiry and collaboration. They work independently to choose quota- tions that exemplify the main idea of the text, come to a consensus about those quotations in collaborative groups, and then formulate “quiz” questions about their reading that other groups will answer. By the end of this lesson, students will have a better understanding of what to focus on in their reading and how to ask good questions. ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ƌĞĂĚǁƌŝƚĞƚŚŝŶŬ͘ŽƌŐͬĐůĂƐƐƌŽŽŵͲƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐͬůĞƐƐŽŶͲƉůĂŶƐͬĂĐƟǀĞͲƌĞĂĚŝŶŐͲƚŚƌŽƵŐŚͲƐĞůĨͲϯϬϳϬϮ͘Śƚŵů Lisa Fink www.readwritethink.org Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 3, March 2014 Verlaan, Ortlieb, and Verlaan | Developing Argument Writing page five sections of the class. (Sample questions are was then directed to choose five questions from 37 included in Fig. 1.) the list that they believed they could answer. For For the second part of the assignment, stu- each question, the group members had to reach dents were placed into cooperative groups of an agreement regarding: a) what they considered three to four and provided with the list of 20 to be the best answer, b) which part(s) of the text questions. To scaffold productive, independent provided adequate evidence for their answer, and group work, the teacher gave students a prefor- c) why this evidence supported their answer. matted answer sheet (see Fig. 2) and a sample Allowing student groups a choice of which response to clarify the length and format require- questions they believed they could answer helped 3 ments for their written responses. Each group provide the intrinsic motivation that comes from a sense of self-efficacy (Alvermann, 2002; Mari- nak, 2013; Marinak & Gambrell, 2010; Ortlieb, 2010; Scott, 1996; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Re- Questions: “The Scarlet Ibis” quiring students to reach a consensus regarding 1. Why did the narrator leave his brother during the their answers to each question and the evidence storm? to best support those answers provided an addi- 2. Why did the narrator think it was so important that tional impetus to read the text closely. Doodle not be different? Each class section exhibited high levels of 3. Why did Doodle show so much sympathy toward the Scarlet Ibis? student engagement and interest in the assign- 4. Why didn’t the narrator accept Doodle as he was? ment. The instructor moved from group to 5. Why, after Doodle’s death, did the narrator refer to group, seeing each group at least once, to ob- him as his Scarlet Ibis? serve students’ thinking processes and to mediate 6. Why did the narrator want to kill Doodle when Doodle was still a baby? 7. Why did Doodle scream when he touched the coffin? “Scarlet Ibis” Answer Sheet 8. Why did the narrator let his pride overcome him? Directions: 9. Why was the narrator mean to Doodle? 1. Agree on 5 questions from the question list to discuss in your group. 10. Why was the narrator trying to “train” Doodle? 2. Write down the question you are going to answer. 11. Why did the narrator say he had a knot of cruelty in 3. Write down what the group decides is the best answer. him and that he had seen it in others? 4. Write down what the group decides is the best evidence from the story 12. Why did Doodle go along with his brother’s training? to support your answer. 13. Why did the narrator say that pride had two vines— 5. Write an explanation for why/how your evidence supports your answer. one life and one death? 14. Why did all of the characters in Doodle’s “stories” Question: ___________________________________________________ have wings? 15. Why are all the details of the day of Doodle’s death ____________________________________________________________ still clear in the narrator’s mind? Answer: _____________________________________________________ 16. Why does the aunt feel Doodle should be treated special? Was she correct? ____________________________________________________________ 17. Did the narrator forgive himself for Doodle’s death? Evidence/quote: ______________________________________________ 18. Why was the peacock in Doodle’s favorite story impor- ____________________________________________________________ tant? 19. Why didn’t Doodle tell his parents about all the ____________________________________________________________ things his brother was making him do? Why/how does the evidence support the quote?:_____________________ 20. Why was the narrator trying to make Doodle some- thing he wasn’t? ____________________________________________________________ Figure 1. Sample student-generated think and search ____________________________________________________________ questions to “The Scarlet Ibis” Figure 2. Answer sheet template distributed to students Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 3, March 2014 Verlaan, Ortlieb, and Verlaan | Developing Argument Writing page 38 discussions regarding the answers and evidence the connection between the narrator’s anger at they selected to complete the assignment. For ex- his own failure to train Doodle and his leaving ample, one group tackled the question “Why did Doodle during the storm. This level of student the narrator leave his brother during the storm?” engagement and depth of discussion about the When asked, the group spokesperson read their text was characteristic of the interactions that oc- agreed upon response: “The narrator suspected curred during the assignment. that if he ran, his brother would run because he This assignment demonstrates one method was pretty much attached to the narrator.” This in which the first CCSS Reading and Writing generalization made it obvious that they had not Anchor Standards mutually reinforce each other. read the text closely Requiring students to justify their answers with This type of assignment enough. The instructor evidence from the text supports the first CCSS . . . is invaluable in helping asked the spokesper- Writing Anchor Standard. Whether with the son to reread the re- teacher’s prompting, as in the previous exchange, students to understand that lated passage out loud. or independently as they developed answers for not only will some of the When prompted to find the questions they selected, the students were led evidence in the text that to rethink and/or refine their original answers most important information supported their original as a group to demonstrate “valid reasoning and in a text require a think and answer, two students relevant and sufficient evidence” to support their rejected their initial an- claims. And as they debated what evidence would search approach to uncover swer but tried to explain fully support their arguments, they had to reread and comprehend, but this why they had decided (“read closely”) portions of the text. upon it (“we were try- Although it is difficult to quantify writing information will also form ing to shorten it,” etc.). improvement on the basis of one assignment, the basis for writing mean- When asked to provide using assignments throughout the year that in- a better answer based volved generating and answering think and search ingful responses. on what they had just questions had demonstrable results for reading reread, they could come and writing achievement on both classroom and up only with a modified version of the original state-mandated assessments. All the students in 7 answer, which they still could not justify. this cohort passed the statewide ELA reading and When they could not substantiate the “why?” writing assessments (compared with a passing rate for their answer, the spokesperson was asked to of 85% for the school district and state in reading read the passage out loud yet again. As he began, and a passing rate of 93% for the school district one group member saw the start of an answer in and state in writing). Even more significant than the text: “A streak of cruelty in me awakened.” the passing rate, however, was that over 60% of She was prompted to continue explaining the the cohort achieved a “commended” level of per- meaning she saw in the quote: “Why did the formance (the highest level) on the writing por- author write this?” “Because he was bitter.” tion of the statewide assessment (compared with The instructor then turned to the whole group: 26% for the district and 31% for the state). As- “Why was the narrator bitter?” Another student signments that involved generating and answer- presented an idea that demonstrated he was be- ing think and search questions likely contributed 8 ginning to make inferences: “He had a brother to students scoring so well on the essay portion of who couldn’t do much with him.” Asked about the assessment, most specifically on the “Devel- the circumstances in the story that preceded this opment of Ideas” section of the rubric, for which passage (the narrator’s unsuccessful attempt to the highest score point reads: “The writer’s thor- remove any evidence of Doodle’s handicap be- ough and specific development of each idea creates fore he started school in the fall), the group made depth of thought in the composition, enabling Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 3, March 2014 Verlaan, Ortlieb, and Verlaan | Developing Argument Writing page the reader to truly understand and appreciate the Ciardiello, A. (2007). Puzzle them first! Motivating ado- 39 writer’s ideas” (emphasis added). lescent readers with question-finding. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Benefits of the Assignment Doepker, G., & Ortlieb, E. (2011). Preserving adoles- cent readership through interest and motivation. Scaffolding students’ reading and thinking to en- International Journal of Education, 3(1), E3. able them to construct well-supported, evidence- Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices based responses to think and search questions has for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. several benefits. First, having students question Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research 8 the text supports their reading comprehension has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–243). Newark, DE: International Reading by helping them develop the habit of questioning Association. while they read, which is a metacognitive strategy Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, characteristic of “what good readers do.” Sec- A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and ond, having students accumulate the necessary teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels evidence to support their answers requires them & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say to reread parts of the text several times (“read about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 53–91). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. closely”), which is addressed by the first CCSS Graesser, A., Ozuru, Y., & Sullins, J. (2010). What is a Reading Anchor Standard. Third, having stu- good question? In M. G. McKeown & L. Ku- dents explain why their evidence supports their can (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. answers helps them begin to develop the writ- 112–141). New York, NY: Guilford Press. ing skills and techniques that link answers with Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement explanations—precisely the type of writing that and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. forms the basis for argument required in many Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Hand- postsecondary courses of study. Thus, this type book of reading research: Volume III (pp. 403–422). New York, NY: Erlbaum. of assignment lays part of the groundwork for Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading the type of college-ready analysis of a text neces- for the 21st century. Washington DC: Alliance for sary to creating meaningful arguments. Whether Excellent Education. writing a literary essay that addresses the major Marinak, B. (2013). Courageous reading instruction: themes of a novel or play, or analyzing a science, The effects of an elementary motivation interven- history, or math text, students are more success- tion. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, ful when they understand that not only will some 39–48. of the most important information in a text re- Marinak, B., & Gambrell, L. (2010). Reading mo- quire a think and search approach to uncover and tivation: Exploring the elementary gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 129–141. comprehend, but this information will also form Moller, J., Cheek, E. H., Jr., Ortlieb, E., & Steward, the basis for writing meaningful responses. F. (2012). Model, engage, write, and evaluate: A model for informative writing. Journal of Studies in References Education, 2(1), 149–163. Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction National Governors Association Center for Best Practic- for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, es, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). 189–208. Common core state standards: English language Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot arts; Literacy in history/social studies, science, and of writing instruction in middle schools and high technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27. Ortlieb, E. (2010). Beyond just books: Sparking stu- Ciardiello, A. (1998). Did you ask a good question dents’ interest in reading. International Journal of today? Alternative cognitive and metacognitive Education, 2(2), E9. strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Ortlieb, E., & Doepker, G. M. (2011). Reaching resis- 42, 210–219. tant readers: Explicit approaches to promote and Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 3, March 2014 Verlaan, Ortlieb, and Verlaan | Developing Argument Writing page 40 retain reading motivation. The Oklahoma Reader, Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). 46(2), 7–14, 37–38. Teaching students to generate questions: A review Ortlieb, E., Grandstaff-Beckers, G., & Cheek, of the intervention studies. Review of Educational E., Jr. (2012). Fostering reading excel- Research, 66, 181–221. lence at every level of school through read- Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one ing clinics. The Clearing House, 85, 1–6. doi: change: Teach students to ask their own questions. 10.1080/00098655.2011.601356 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal Scott, J. E. (1996). Self-efficacy: A key to literacy learn- teaching of comprehension-fostering and com- ing. Reading Horizons, 36, 195–213. prehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Verlaan, W., & Ortlieb, E. (2012). Reading while Instruction, 2, 117–175. listening: Improving struggling adolescent readers’ Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources comprehension through the use of digital audio of information for answering comprehension ques- recordings. In J. Cassidy, S. Grote-Garcia, E. tions. Journal of Reading, 27(4), 303–311. Martinez, & R. Garcia (Eds.), What’s hot in literacy Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question-answer rela- 2012 yearbook (pp. 30–36). San Antonio, TX: The tionships. The Reading Teacher, 39, 516–520. University of the Incarnate Word. Reitsma, P. (1988). Reading practice for beginners: Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value Effects of guided reading, reading-while-listening, theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational and independent reading with computer-based Psychology, 25, 68–81. speech feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, Yopp, R. E. (1988). Questioning and active compre- 219–235. hension. Questioning Exchange, 2, 231–238. Wolfram Verlaan (

) is an assistant professor of Reading and Literacy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is a National Board Certified Teacher in ELA/Early Adolescence. Evan Ortlieb (

) is a senior lecturer and unit coordinator at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Sue Oakes Verlaan (

) is a literacy consultant in Huntsville, Alabama, and is a National Board Certified Teacher in ELA/Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Voices from the Middle, Volume 21 Number 3, March 2014