Teaching and Learning the Writing of Persuasive/Argumentative Discourse
Keywords:
Persuasive writing, Argumentative discourse, Elementary education, Writing developmentAbstract
School students' performance in persuasive/argumentative writing is not as goo as their performance in narrative writing. Typical weaknesses are lack of supp for reasons, poor organization, and immature language. Persuasive writing is thought to be difficult because it is more cognitively demanding than narrati writing. Persuasive/argumentative writing should, however, be included in th elementary curriculum, for a number of reasons: persuasion occurs early in spoken language, precursors of argument appear in the writing of very you children, even poor persuasive writing shows embryonic forms of argument, a children's social and educational experiences offer abundant opportunities fo contextually relevant writing.
References
Applebee, A.N. (1974). Tradition and reform in the teaching of English: A history. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Applebee, A.N. (1984). Contexts for learning to write: Studies of secondary school instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., & Mullis, I.V.S. (1986a). Writing: Trends across the decade, 1974–1984. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Applebee, A., Langer, J., & Mullis, I. (1986b). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73–93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2; pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
British Columbia Ministry of Education, Student Assessment Branch. (1989). 1988 B.C. reading and written assessment provincial report. Victoria: British Columbia Ministry of Education.
Britton, J.N., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11–15). London: Macmillan Education.
Connor, U., Gorman, T., & Vahapassi, A. (1987). The argumentative/persuasive task. In T.P. Gorman, A.C. Purves, & R.E. Degenhart (Eds.), The IEA study of written composition. Volume 1: The international writing scales and scoring scales (pp. 181–202). Jyvaskyla, Finland: Institute for Educational Research.
Craig, S.G. (1986). The effect of audience on language functions in written argument at two grade levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Crowhurst, M. (1978). The effect of audience and mode of discourse on the syntactic complexity of the writing of sixth and tenth graders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 7300A.
Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education, 5(1), 6–13.
Crowhurst, M. (1983, April). A developmental perspective on persuasive writing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit.
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 185–201.
Crowhurst, M. (1989, May). Writing for real correspondents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Council of Teachers of English, Vancouver.
Dixon, J., & Stratta, L. (1986). Argument and the teaching of English. In A. Wilkinson (Ed.), The writing of writing (pp. 8–21). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Emig, J. (1981). Non-magical thinking: Presenting writing development in schools. In C.H. Frederiksen & J.F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development and teaching of written communication (pp. 21–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Falk, J.S. (1979). Language acquisition and the teaching and learning of writing. College English, 41, 436–447.
Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1984). Why students can't write arguments. English in Education, 18(2), 73–84.
Gorman, T.P., White, J., Brooks, C., MacLure, M., & Kispal, A. (1988). A review of language monitoring 1979–83. London: HMSO, Assessment of Performance Unit.
Heath, S.B., & Branscombe, A. (1985). “Intelligent writing” in an audience community: Teacher, students and researcher. In S.W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language (pp. 2–32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McCann, T.M. (1989). Student argumentative writing, knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62–76.
Martin, J.R., & Rothery, J. (1981). The ontogenesis of written genre. In J.R. Martin & J. Rothery (Eds.), Working papers in linguistics, no. 2 (pp. 1–59). Sydney, NSW: University of Sydney, Linguistics Department.
Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Newkirk, T. (1987). The non-narrative writing of young children. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 121–144.
Newkirk, T. (1989). More than stories: The range of children's writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pringle, I., & Freedman, A. (1985). A comparative study of writing abilities in modes at the grade 5, 8, and 12 levels. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.
Teale, W.H. (1982). Toward a theory of how children learn to read and write naturally. Language Arts, 59, 555–570.
White, J. (1989). Children's argumentative writing: A reappraisal of difficulty. In F. Christie (Ed.), Writing in schools: Reader (ECT 418) (pp. 9–23). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Wilkinson, A.M. (1986). Argument as a primary act of mind. Educational Review, 38, 127–138.
Wilkinson, A.M., Barnsley, G., Hanna, P., & Swan, M. (1980). Assessing language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Canadian Journal of Education follows Creative Commons Licencing CC BY-NC-ND.
