Inquiry and Common Core: Argument Processes, Part 1

The cornerstone skills for writing found in the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are based on argumentation and debate. Information inquiry, the process of investigative information review, is the keystone for the archway connecting information evaluation to the argumentative writing skills of the secondary level Common Core writing standards.

Basic terms and related processes for information and evidence search processes will be outlined in this month’s column. Next month, this column will explore the discourse for arguments through dialogue and debate that allow for testing claims and evidence.

DEFINING ARGUMENT

Argument is the content necessary for the inquiry process to function. Inquiry is investigative. It is the reason for the information search processes that move teachers and students through data and resources for the most meaningful, relevant, current, and valid evidence so that convincing conclusions can be reached. Using this process effectively means that one understands not only the process, but also trusted authoritative resources. The results are mature information scientists with lifelong critical thinking skills.

The CCSS states,

Arguments are used for many purposes—to change the reader’s point of view, to bring about some action on the reader’s part, or to ask the reader to accept the writer’s explanation or evaluation of a concept, issue, or problem. An argument is a reasoned, logical way of demonstrating that the writer’s position, belief, or conclusion is valid (2010, 23).

The CCSS identifies the role of argument across the curriculum:

• In English language arts, students make claims about the worth or meaning of a literary work or works. They defend their interpretations or judgments with evidence from the text(s) about which they are writing.
• In history/social studies, students analyze evidence from multiple primary and secondary sources to advance a claim that is best supported by the evidence, and they argue for a historically or empirically situated interpretation.
• In science, students make claims in the form of statements or conclusions that answer questions or address problems. Using data in a scientifically acceptable form, students marshal evidence and draw on their understanding of scientific concepts to argue in support of their claims (2010, 23).

While CCSS lacks a full discussion of oral argumentation skills, a clear division between informational and explanatory writing skills is provided. Narrative and creative writing formats are left to teacher discretion. Such is not because of their lack of importance, but because of the attention that must be given to expanding and raising the level for argumentative communication across the curriculum and across all student, teacher, and parent populations. CCSS puts particular high emphasis on the student’s ability to “write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical to college and career readiness” (2010,24).

TEACHING ARGUMENT BASED ON TOULMIN

Most methods for teaching argumentative communication are based on the elements of argument as defined by British philosopher Stephen Toulmin. George Hillocks, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, has provided a recent application of these elements as they relate to teaching argumentative writing in grades 6-12 (2011). The Toulmin method states the following:

• Claim – A statement or proposal that you are asking others to accept. This information includes information you are asking others to accept as true.
• Grounds – Data, especially hard facts, along with reasoning behind the justification for accepting your claim. Proof of the expertise behind the data as well as comparison to other data that may be faulty should be considered.
• Warrant – A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. Attempts to answer why the data mean your claim is true (best, most likely to address a problem).
• Backing – Additional associated data and logic that add to the support of the key claim.
• Qualifier – Indication of the strength of the association between the data and the claim. May indicate the degree of the association between the claim and evidence in that the conclusion is usually or sometimes true.
• Rebuttal – Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counter-arguments usually based on a counter set of data and/or varying interpretations of the same data. A rebuttal can include opposition to one piece of evidence or be a counter proposal with a different set of needs and conclusions from the claim you have offered (Toulmin 2003).

FOCUS FOR SCHOOL LIBRARIANS

The ability to define a claim—support the argument with warrants based on valid evidence located through systematic literature reviews—parallel established information search methods.

What school librarians need to add are:

• Methods for student generation of original data, and
• Exercises that truly test the value and validity of information as meaningful evidence.

STRATEGIES TO MANAGE INFORMATION, TIME, AND TOPIC CHOICE

In 2012, Carol C. Kuhlthau and her colleagues constructed a framework for guiding inquiry based on the steps of her Information Search Process (IPS) (Kuhlthau 1994). Inquiry, under their enhanced framework, is a collaborative, social process driven by immersion into the literature and sharing of information findings that lead to meaning through personal journals and a variety of group discussion sessions designed to document the conversations about and the greater understanding of knowledge discovered (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, and Caspari 2012). Their exercises help to build the information-use skills needed for dealing with the massive amount of resources now facing any researcher—student or professional. This form of guided inquiry is valuable, but additional attention should be given to evaluating information as evidence if it is to fit into the CCSS argument skill set.

Kuhlthau’s ISP is topic-driven. Learning success is measured by increased student understanding and completion of the assignment by utilizing a meaningful topic. While the process works well in the general search, selection, and assimilation of information, additional actions would need to be taken to establish an argument based on claims supported or rejected by relevance and quality of evidence. Therefore, the information search should go beyond the library and electronic resources as the student applies methods to gather original data.

Basic research skills that engage proper methods for observation, interviewing, surveying, and experimentation should be exercised so that the inquiry can be based not only on a search for established information, but also on new information relevant to key arguments. Student generation, application and defense of original data are the skills related to argumentative writing that form the basis for success on the job and in college in the 21st Century (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, and Walters 2007).

Because of the emphasis on the time demands and the emotional impact on the student to find a focus that can be managed successfully given usual school library resource limitations, Kuhlthau’s interventions for guiding inquiry best meet these common core skills found across secondary grade levels:

CC6-8WH/SS/S/TS5 – With some guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on how well purpose and audience have been addressed (2010).

CC9-10WH/SS/S/TS2b – Develop the topic with well-chosen, relevant and sufficient facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples appropriate to the audience’s knowledge of the topic (2010).

STRATEGIES TO PLAN ARGUMENTATIVE LESSONS

The Stripling Inquiry Model is lesson-driven. Success is measured by lessons that meet teacher goals as well as the needs of the widest portion of the student population. Barbara Stripling of Syracuse University provides a collaborative blueprint for teachers and school librarians to work together in order to bring common multiple source assignments designed to engage students in the questioning processes for inquiry. When the lessons are based on exploration of controversial issues, Stripling’s widely adopted lesson planning processes serve to support much of the CCSS (Stripling and Harada, 2012). The two most applicable skills are as follows:

CC9-10WH/SS/S/T8 – Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the usefulness of each source in answering the research question; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation (2010).

CC9-10WH/SS/S/T7 – Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including self-generated questions) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation (2010).

INFORMATION INQUIRY FOR TESTING EVIDENCE

Information inquiry is evidence-driven (Callison and Preddy 2006). Success is measured by growth in student abilities to assimilate or reject information as evidence. It is a continuous cycle that is powered by raising questions and exploring evidence to select the needed information. The student may be successful in this process by showing the inadequacies of evidence available and the problems in addressing certain issues or questions because the methods and means for establishing credible evidence is not possible.

Acting as “student information scientists,” the data that students locate and generate in response to initial questions create new questions (Callison 2005). The authority and relevance of the evidence are constantly challenged. There is interaction between assimilating new information with held beliefs and testing new warrants for change. Inference of conclusions or problem-solving is triggered when new evidence is found to be relevant and valid.

The student operates as an information scientist by reflecting on the success or shortcomings of the search process as well as the quality or limitations of the evidence obtained. Further, the student as information scientist establishes a knowledge of the authoritativeness of various resources so that he/she can quickly counter arguments when necessary based on quality of data obtained. The inquiry is driven by the data—expanding, countering or narrowing as the evidence determines. Information Inquiry addresses these CCSS:

CC6-8WH/SS/S/TS9 – Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research (2010).

CC9-10WH/SS/S/TS1a – Introduce precise claims(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence (2010).

CC6-8WH/SS/S/TS1c – Use words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence (2010).

CC11-12WH/SS/S/TS2a – Introduce a topic and organize complex ideas, concepts, and information so that each new element builds on that which precedes it to create a unified whole; include formatting (e.g. headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables) and multimedia when useful to aiding comprehension (2010).

A MULTITUDE OF POSSIBLE PROCESSES

Many information research models or processes are effective in helping to improve how students seek, manage, and present information. Each has strengths and an accepting audience. In the hands of good instructional school librarians, nearly any of the models will provide an adequate learning agenda (Wolf, Brush, and Saye 2003).

For the CCSS argument skills, however, there is a need for more attention, time, and practice to be given to raising a claim, counterclaims, reasons, and linking evidence. Students need the time and learning environment within the library as a learning lab to experiment with arguments, counter-arguments, validity of evidence found, and identification of additional evidence needed (Callison 2000). Conference rooms within the school library, when managed as an information learning lab, can provide the space for peer interactions and teacher guidance that lead to selection and use of the best evidence possible. It is also in the laboratory environment that students draft plans for surveys, observations, and interviews that will lead to original data.