Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation Grades 9–12 ELA I Day 4 Credit: Nick Lue.

Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation
Grades 9–12 ELA I Day 4 Credit: Nick Lue

Welcome Back Introducing: OE Presenter
Judson Odell — founder and CEO of Odell Education 3

Plus/Delta Review

Debriefing the Keynote
6/4/2016 Debriefing the Keynote Fill out index cards (5 minutes) Get up and find a partner to share Connections (2 minutes) Find a new partner. Share Connections and Contradictions, making sure to integrate your last conversation into this one. Finally, collaborate on Questions (3 minutes) Find another NEW partner and share Ah-has (1 minute) Return to seat and prepare to share Connections Contradictions Questions 20 Min Take four index cards, and label them with the headings above. Prepare yourself with the directions and a way to keep time so people move at designated end times for conversations. Circulate as you listen to feedback, and prepare a way to segue into today’s objectives Connections you made to what we have been learning this week? Was there information from the keynote that seems to contradict our understandings? Let’s address it. Ah-ha’s – what stood out? Did anything rock your world? What do you want to take back from this? What are some new questions that you have, or information you want to learn about? Share out from the audience, calling on a couple of participants for each card Consider a step back: What protocols did we do here that we could recycle with students? (writing before sharing, movement, building on ideas, and sharing out) Ah-has 3

Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation
ODELL EDUCATION INTRO - 10 MINUTES

Norms that Support our Learning
Take responsibility for yourself as a learner Honor timeframes Be an active hands-on listener Strive for equity of voice Contribute to a learning environment where it is “safe not to know” 4

Inquiry Question 1 What is the relationship between building knowledge and developing proficiency? 1 MINUTE Present Inquiry Question One as the first of two thematic inquiry questions that we will explore in the context of teaching CCSS argumentation.

Inquiry Question 2 How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops proficiency in ALL learners? 1 MINUTE Present Guiding Question Two as the second of two thematic inquiry questions that we will explore in the context of teaching CCSS argumentation. one aspect of this is what is included into the design for all students and what separate specialized approaches/materials

Revisiting the Shifts Regular practice with complex texts and their academic language Reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from texts, both literary and informational Building knowledge through content-rich non-fiction This week you have spent a good deal of time delving into shifts 1 and 2, and for the remainder of the week we are going to take a look at what instruction can look like when you add shift 3 into the mix 7

Two-Day Workshop Objectives
By the end of this workshop, participants will be able to... Detail the relationship between building knowledge and developing literacy proficiency. Explain how argumentative instruction can build knowledge and develop proficiency in all learners. Explain the OE Core Proficiencies approach to teaching CCSS argumentation — with an emphasis on defending a position developed from topical understanding and textual evidence. Integrate experiences from the session and week into teaching practices. 2 MINUTES Read through objectives 10 10

Workshop Roadmap Session 1
DAY 1 Session 1 Introduction to Teaching State Standards Argumentation Lunch Session 2 Teaching Argumentation to All Learners Break (15 minutes) Session 3 Delineating Arguments and Comparing Perspectives Session 4 Evaluating Arguments and Developing a Position 3 MINUTES Briefly introduce the overall session topics. Session 1: CCSS’ perspective on argument; implications Session 2: OE approach to teaching argumentation that is accessible to all learners Session 3: participants work with OE materials to gain a deep understanding of the unit mechanics Session 4: participants continue to work with OE materials to gain a deep understanding of the unit mechanics

Workshop Roadmap Session 5 Building an Evidence-Based Argument
DAY 2 Session 5 Building an Evidence-Based Argument Session 6 Supporting Students’ Argumentative Writing Break (15 minutes) Session 7 Exploring and Evaluating our Arguments Lunch Session 8 Reflection on the Session and Week 2 MINUTES Briefly introduce the overall session topics for Day 2. Session 5: participants deepen their understanding of the unit topic and its implications for teaching argumentation Session 6: participants review the OE approach to teaching peer-review driven argumentative writing Session 7: participants continue to deepen their understanding of the topic and materials Session 8: reflection on the week/session - e.g., time to integrate into own teaching practice, school curriculum, etc.

Sessions Protocol: Activity Progression
Explanation of activity Participants work independently or in pairs (as students) Small groups discuss the activity (as teachers) Plenary discussion (as teachers) Small-Group and Plenary Discussion Guides How do the activities address the specific language of the targeted standards? What do the activities teach us about our Inquiry Questions? 1 MINUTE Present “flow” of sessions where participants engage in activities (most of them taken directly from unit using unit materials) as students and then reflect on their experience first in small groups and then with the entire group.

Session 1: Introduction to Teaching Argumentation
SESSION MINUTES - 10:10-12:00 [LUNCH]

Session 1 Objectives At the end of this session, participants will be able to... Explain state standards RI.8 and W.1 and their implications for student learning. Explain the OE Core Proficiencies approach to teaching argumentation — with an emphasis on defending a position developed from topical understanding and textual evidence. Summarize the organization of the OE Building Evidence-Based Arguments units and materials. Analyze a topic by reading informational texts from the Grade 9 Building EBA Unit. 5 MINUTES Read through Session 1 objectives.

State Standards & LAFS Standards
For this training, we will be reading and discussing the state standards but will reference the equivalent Language Arts Florida Standards (LAFS). The LAFS mentioned in this training are the same as the highlighted state standards. It is okay if participants want to use Florida ELA standards for this training.

Activity 1.1: Reading State Standards RI.8 and W.1 closely
Read and Annotate: RI.8 and W.1 [LAFS.910.RI.3.8 and LAFS.910.W.1.1] Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What words or phrases stand out as significant? What connections do you see between the two standards? What seems different from how you have approached teaching students to analyze and write arguments in the past? What kinds of texts are necessary to meet the skills addressed in these standards? What is the relationship between the building of knowledge and the development of proficiency? Plenary discussion 30 MINUTES Participants should focus on whichever level they primarily teach. In Plenary Discussion, draw out: W.1: “alternate, opposing claims” “precise, knowledgeable claims” “significance of claims” “counterclaims fairly” “most relevant evidence” “strengths and limitations of counterclaims” RI.8 and W.1 “validity of reasoning” and “valid reasoning”

State Standard RI.8 [LAFS.RI.3.8]
RI.8.ANCHOR: Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. RI.9–10.8: Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning. RI.8.11–12: Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy. In Plenary Discussion, draw out: W.1: “alternate, opposing claims” “precise, knowledgeable claims” “significance of claims” “counterclaims fairly” “most relevant evidence” “strengths and limitations of counterclaims” RI.8 and W.1 “validity of reasoning” and “valid reasoning”

State Standards W.9–10.1 [LAFS.910.W.1.1]
W.9–10.1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. a: Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b: Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience's knowledge level and concerns. c: Use words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims. d: Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. e: Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented. In Plenary Discussion, draw out: W.1: “alternate, opposing claims” “precise, knowledgeable claims” “significance of claims” “counterclaims fairly” “most relevant evidence” “strengths and limitations of counterclaims” RI.8 and W.1 “validity of reasoning” and “valid reasoning”

State Standards W.11–12.1 [LAFS.1112.W.1.1]
W 1.11–12: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. a. Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases. c. Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims. d. Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented. In Plenary Discussion, draw out: W.1: “alternate, opposing claims” “precise, knowledgeable claims” “significance of claims” “counterclaims fairly” “most relevant evidence” “strengths and limitations of counterclaims” RI.8 and W.1 “validity of reasoning” and “valid reasoning”

Activity 1.2: Discussing State Standards Argumentation
Read and Annotate: pp. 24–25 of Appendix A — “The special place of argument in the standards” Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What words or phrases stand out as significant? How do the state standards articulate the difference between “argument” and “persuasion”? What are the implications for the importance of argumentation for our ELA classrooms and curriculum? Plenary discussion 15 MINUTES Plenary discussion: Shift to argumentative writing Importance of argumentative writing (and culture) in college and career setting Difference between argument and persuasion

State Standards Appendix A
“As part of their attempt to explain to new college students the major differences between good high school and college writing, Williams and McEnerney define argument not as ‘wrangling’ but as ‘a serious and focused conversation among people who are intensely interested in getting to the bottom of things cooperatively.’ ” (State Standards, Appendix A, p. 24) Plenary discussion: “While all three text types are important, the Standards put particular emphasis on students’ ability to write sound arguments on substantive topics and issues, as this ability is critical to college and career readiness.” “The Standards place special emphasis on writing logical arguments as a particularly important form of college- and career-ready writing.”

Argumentation and College and Career Readiness
Current study that reflects the comments made in the CCSS Appendix A - students need more experience developing and honing their argumentation literacy skills.

Odell Education Claims
For all learners to build knowledge and develop proficiency in state standards argumentation, we should: teach RI.8 and W.1 together with a learning progression sequenced to coordinate building topical knowledge with developing analytic reading and writing proficiency. teach academic vocabulary to support student’s argumentative analysis, discussion and writing. use substantive topics that are relevant to students and provide a rich context for learning argumentation. 5 MINUTES read through overview of OE claims elaboration of claim 2: to provide the context for accessing progressively more sophisticated arguments, applying more sophisticated reading skills, and developing writing from a base of topical knowledge and analysis.

Activity 1.3: Evaluating OE Claim 1
Read: Unit Plan p. 2 — “Evidence-Based Argumentation,” Unit Outline, and Grade 9 Text Sets Evaluate the claim in your small group: For all learners to build knowledge and proficiency in state standards argumentation, we should teach RI.8 and W.1 together with a learning progression sequenced to coordinate building topical knowledge with developing analytic reading and writing proficiency. Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: How does the unit activity sequence directly address W.1 and RI.8? What do the activity sequence and text set show about the relationship between building knowledge and developing proficiency? Plenary Discussion 20 MINUTES Begin evaluating. introduced to the learning progression. save full evaluation for end of day Relate text set and the importance of building topical knowledge in order to address CCSS RI.8 and W.1.

Odell Education Building EBA Unit 9
Google search: “odell education literacy” Click on: “Unit 4: Building Evidence-Based Arguments” Click on: “Grade 9 Unit (“What is the virtue of a proportional response?”)” Click on: “Argumentation Unit Plan G9” Unit-Plan-G9.pdf Keep the Unit Plan open as we’ll be using it throughout the workshop.

Activity 1.4: Introducing the Issue with Questions
View the video: West Wing, “Proportional Response” Read Unit Plan Part 1, Activity 1 - Introducing the Unit (p. 9-10) Discuss in your small group using Guiding Questions: What are students aware of as they begin the unit? How do questions help introduce the topic to students? How is the video used instructionally? Plenary discussion 10 MINUTES pages 9-10 of unit plan for those following along online Discuss strategy of using guiding questions to engage students and spark interest - an introduction to the topic.

Problem-Based Question: West Wing, “Proportional Response”

Activity 1.5: Building Background Knowledge
Read: Unit Plan Part 1, Activity 2 (p. 10–12) and the texts “What is terrorism?” “Terrorist or Freedom Fighter: What is the difference?” “FBI Major Terrorism Cases: Past and Present” Write a paragraph summary EBC of one of the texts. (Use an Organizing EBC Tool) Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: How does the unit-activity sequence directly address W.1 and RI.8? What do the activity sequence and text set show about the relationship between building knowledge and developing proficiency? Plenary Discussion 25 MINUTES The idea is to introduce participants to the topic reinforce the importance of building background knowledge to address CCSS RI.8 and W.1. demonstrate the different types of texts that can be used to build background knowledge pages of unit plan for those following along online

Locating Texts Online All texts from the unit (Unit Plan page 7) can be found online by searching for the title and author. Copy and paste the title and author into the search field of google.com to quickly locate the texts.

End of Session 1 Questions regarding: State standards RI.8, W.1?
Argumentation unit text sets and outline? Building background knowledge?

Session 2: Argumentation for All Students
SESSION MINUTES - 1:00-2:25

Session 2 Objectives At the end of the session, participants will be able to... Explain how text sets can be designed to build all students’ topical knowledge. Explain how to build all students’ proficiency with argumentation by teaching terminology and using graphic organizers. Analyze how building topical knowledge and literacy proficiency are symbiotic. 2 MINUTES Present Session 2 objectives Symbiotic relationship- building topical knowledge and argumentative literacy skills

Inquiry Question 2 How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? 3 MINUTES Session 2 addresses our second inquiry question.

Inquiry Question How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? Challenge of Inclusion: Central instruction changes to engage diverse learners with rigorous objectives Separate strategies support English-language learners, students with special needs, and students with advanced proficiency Flexibility in instructional design allows teachers to adapt to a variety of classroom compositions. Present the challenge of literacy requirements of RI.8 and W.1 - all students need to access complex, rich and varied texts in order to get at RI.8 and W.1. In other words, there can be no “watering down” of instruction for those with literacy deficits. One example: California’s shift to ELL instruction: From “sheltered instruction” (California) to Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) “In the SDAIE approach, language is viewed as the vehicle for content instruction and content instruction as the vehicle for language instruction.” (Genzuk, 2011) Using Kenji Hakuta’s 2-Xerox machine metaphor for ELL education - separation of language and content instruction (Title 1/Title 7): it’s not just getting rid of the one Xerox machine.

Activity 2.1: Building Topical Knowledge with Text Sets
Review and Reflect on Unit Plan Part 1, Activities 1 and 2, and Text Set (pp. 9–12, 7) Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What stands out as significant in the way the text set is constructed? How do the texts build on each other? How are the various ways you might use each “text set” with your students? How do the text sets and unit plan address state standard RI.8? Plenary discussion 15 MINUTES Plenary discussion: multiple ways of using small groups all texts contribute (to building background knowledge) and are authentic build knowledge in staircase of complexity and vocabulary students are exposed to and gain knowledge of multiple perspectives for addressing counterclaims students read and analyze arguments to use as models for writing splay of complexities, text types, genres, multimedia

Building Evidence-Based Arguments Example Unit: Grade 9 – Terrorism
Text Set #1: Background – The definitions of terrorism/terrorist, incidents of domestic terrorism. Text Set #2: Background – 9/11 terrorist attacks on U.S. Text Set #3: Political Cartoons Text Set #4: Seminal Arguments Text Set #5: Current Arguments Students move through several text sets in order to build their background knowledge in the topic so they can delineate and evaluate arguments around the topic, and eventually form their own position. Without reading around the topic, we are asking students to evaluate arguments without any evidence. Since these arguments exist in a socio-cultural, political, intellectual context, students must read other texts - including informational or expository - in order to fully address standards RI.8 and W.1

Activity 2.2: State Standards RI.8, W.1 and Vocabulary Demands
Read: State standards RI.8, W.1 [LAFS.RI.3.8, LAFS.W.1.1] Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What are the vocabulary demands that RI.8 and W.1 present? How do we help students understand what is being asked of them when we ask them to delineate, evaluate, and write arguments? At the same time, how can students understand terms and concepts such as fallacious reasoning, valid, substantial and relevant evidence, and false statements without knowledge of the topic at hand? Plenary Discussion 20 MINUTES Plenary discussion: Highlight specific vocabulary in the standards (e.g., “delineate,” “valid,” “fallacious,” etc.) How students must build not only topical knowledge, but also conceptual knowledge about argumentation itself in order to fully participate Importance of transferring conceptual knowledge to other topics - same framework, different topics. This is vital for forming a critical and analytical civil society

State Standards and Vocabulary Demands
STATE STANDARDS ELA-LITERACY.RI.9–10.8 [LAFS.RI.3.8] Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning. STATE STANDARDS ELA-LITERACY.W.9–10.1 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. a. Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns. W.1 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and su cient evidence. a. Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns.

State Standards and Building Vocabulary
How do we help students understand what is being asked of them when we ask them to delineate, evaluate, and write arguments? There is a need - as always - to teach vocabulary in a way that is meaningful and “sticks”

State Standards and Building Vocabulary
At the same time, how can students understand terms and concepts such as fallacious reasoning, valid, substantial and relevant evidence, and false statements without knowledge of the topic at hand? Students must access texts that demonstrate this complex set of vocabulary in an authentic and practical manner; students must practice using these terms in an accessible context. Otherwise, these concepts will not be understood fully by students. (Go back to Newsela headline - “Students duped by fake news and biased sources, study finds”)

OE Claim 2 For all learners to build knowledge and develop proficiency in state standards argumentation, we should teach academic vocabulary to support their argumentative analysis, ,and writing. teach academic vocabulary to support analysis, discussion and writing.

Activity 2.3: State Standards RI.8, W.1 and Building Vocabulary
Read the EBA Terms and Delineating Arguments Tool Discuss in your small group using Guiding Questions: How do students begin to understand what is being asked of them when we ask them to evaluate and delineate arguments, or write one themselves? At the same time, how can students understand terms and concepts such as fallacious reasoning, valid, substantial and relevant evidence and false statements without knowledge of topic at hand? How are these tools linked to RI.8 and W.1? Plenary Discussion 15 MINUTES Plenary Discussion Point to direct links between the CCSS and the tool (e.g., “delineate”).

Evidence-Based Argumentation Terms
Here is the OE understanding of the linguistic and conceptual demands of RI.8 and W.1. 47

Evidence-Based Argumentation Terms
Challenge: RI.8 and W.1 require complex language to learn what argumentation is and to learn about a substantive topic Diverse learning needs Question: Given the diverse learning needs of our students, how can we teach these terms so that students understand them conceptually and topically? Even if we have pinpointed the specific vocabulary requirements of RI.8 and W.1, students still need to understand these terms while reading and analyzing complex texts and researching complex topics..

Activity 2.4: Using the Terms, Delineator and Model Arguments
Read: a model argument (Twitter or Course Scheduling) Use the Delineating Arguments Tool and EBA Terms Handout to delineate the argument of one of the case studies. 15 MINUTES In order for students become familiar with these complex terms, they should be presented to them with topically-accessible texts. OE has developed a number of model arguments covering topics such as using Twitter in schools and course scheduling conflicts - topics that should be familiar to students - so that students can apply argumentation terms to familiar topical contexts. Can either split up the cases studies among groups, or have the same group discuss both case studies, etc,.

Activity 2.4: Using the Terms, Delineator and Model Arguments
Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: How does the tool help students understand the components of an argument? How does the model argument help students apply and learn the academic vocabulary? How do these materials address state standard RI.8? Session Inquiry Questions: What is the relationship between deepening knowledge and developing proficiency? How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? Plenary discussion 15 MINUTES Plenary Discussion In order to address the demands of RI.8 and W.1, students not only need to develop a comprehensive understanding of a given topic, but also need to develop their conceptual understanding of the components of arguments, which requires a specific set of vocabulary.

Delineating Arguments — Applying New Vocabulary in a Meaningful Context
Students use a graphic organizer, or tool, to take notes and understand the argument of a text.

Inquiry Question How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? Students use the Evidence-Based Arguments Terms Handout while reading and discussing texts. Students use the Delineating Arguments Tool, which uses the same terms, to pick apart texts with respect to their argumentative elements. Argumentation Terminology and Concepts are taught progressively. To help build vocabulary related to the various elements of argumentation, students first analyze a model argument that should be familiar to the class, such as using Twitter in school. OPTIONAL SLIDE Facilitator can use these next few slides to support the plenary discussion of Activity 2.4 and to summarize the OE approach to vocabulary acquisition for argumentation.

Inquiry Question How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? “The key factor is comprehensible input: messages in the second language that make sense — ideally, just beyond the competence of the listener, who must strain a bit to understand.” (Crawford, 2004, explaining Krashen’s input hypothesis) OPTIONAL SLIDE APPLYING NEW VOCABULARY IN A MEANINGFUL CONTEXT - Vygotsky and Krashen

Inquiry Question How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? “Vygotsky proposed that children learn very little from performing tasks they can already do independently. Instead, they develop primarily by attempting tasks they can accomplish only with assistance and support — that is, when they attempt tasks within their zone of proximal development.” (Ormrod, 2011). OPTIONAL SLIDE APPLYING NEW VOCABULARY IN A MEANINGFUL CONTEXT - Vygotsky and Krashen

Inquiry Question How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? Krashen & Vygotsky — Implications on instruction It is difficult to acquire new language when students don’t understand the context. However, students need to be pushed out of their comfort zones if we want them to acquire new vocabulary. Students thus use comprehensible argument models and graphic organizers to learn the language of argumentation prior to diving into complex arguments on the topic. OPTIONAL SLIDE

End of Session 2 Questions regarding: The EBA Terms Handout?
The Delineating Arguments Tool? Scaffolding student work? Model arguments? State standards RI.8, W.1?

Session 3: Delineating Arguments and Comparing Perspectives

Session 3 Objectives At the end of the session, participants will be able to... Delineate a seminal argument. Analyze perspective in arguments while building topical knowledge. Develop an evidence-based claim comparing two arguments based on the author's perspectives. 5 MINUTES Overview of Session 3 objectives

Activity 3.1: Delineating a Seminal Argument
Read the Joint Resolution of the 107th Congress Use the Tool to the Delineating Arguments Tool to delineate the argument, identifying specific components of the text. Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: How does the graphic organizer support student comprehension and analysis of arguments? How does the seminal argument help students apply and learn the vocabulary? How does the seminal argument help students to deepen their knowledge of the topic? Plenary Discussion 20 MINUTES Applying the tool to a seminal argument Now that students have some background knowledge and an initial grasp of the argumentation terms and how they play out in a model argument, they are ready for a seminal topical argument.

OE Unit: Part 2, Activities 3 + 4 — Perspective
Key to understanding arguments related to a topic and writing one’s own argument is the concept of Perspective. Using the EBA Terms Handout and Delineating Arguments Tool, students also turn their eye to perspective. Not only is perspective essential for RI.8, it is also essential for W.1. 5 MINUTES Students not only need to delineate arguments, but also understand how different perspectives influence an author’s position on the topic. Looking at various perspectives and positions sets up students to write an argument (W.1). Point to key words in W.1 that allude to perspective.

State Standards W.9–10.1 W.9–10.1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. a: Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b: Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience's knowledge level and concerns. Point to key words in W.1 that allude to perspective.

State Standards W.11–12.1 W.11–12: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. a. Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases. Point to key words in W.1 that allude to perspective.

Activity 3.2: Delineating arguments and comparing perspectives
Read/watch Unit Plan Part 2, Activities 4 and 5 (pp. bottom of 21–24) and the two texts Bush's first official response to 9/11 from the Oval Office, President Bush, Yale Law School — Avalon Project. (video also available YouTube) “A Place of Peace: for a 9/11 victim’s widow, revenge is not the answer,” Lauren Frohne, 9/4/2011, Boston Globe Use the Delineating Arguments Tool to identify specific components of each text. Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What is the author thinking and saying about the issue? What do the author’s language and approach suggest about his/her relationship to and perspective on the issue or problem? How does the author’s relationship to the issue help shape his/her position? How can a comparison of these two arguments be used to deepen understanding of perspective and topical knowledge? 15 MINUTES Focus discussion on how comparing arguments deepens one’s understanding of the complexity of the topic.

Activity 3.3: Developing Comparative Claims
Use the Organizing EBC Tool to write down a claim that compares the perspectives of two authors, choosing evidence from the texts to support your claim. Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What comparisons did you draw from the texts? What did these texts allow you to compare? How does this activity deepen students’ topical knowledge and support their argumentative writing? Plenary discussion 10 MINUTES Instead of focusing on perspective, participants might also write claims about the authors’ position, use of reason, or any other EBA Terms. This might change with each student if they are having a difficult time understanding an EBA term or how it is applied to an argument.

Writing Comparative Claims about Perspective and Argument
Students write evidence- based claims to help understand and analyze each argument. They will use these claims later as they compile notes and thoughts to build their argument paper. Students can use either the Forming EBC or Organizing EBC Tools (2 or 3 points) At this stage in the year, students have been using this tool for other texts.

Delineating More Arguments and Perspectives
Unit Plan Part 2, Activities 5 & 6: Students have ample materials (arguments) to analyze in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the: delineation of arguments different ways argumentative techniques can be used to communicate a position “substantive topic” (state standard W.1) 2 minutes Participants can look at the text set as well to get an idea for how many texts students read in the unit. Classrooms might also conduct their own research projects if students or groups of students find a particular aspect of the topic intruiging.

End of Session 3 Questions regarding: The EBA Terms Handout?
The Delineating Arguments Tool? Perspective? Seminal arguments? State standards RI.8, W.1?

Evaluating Arguments and Developing a Position
Session 4: Evaluating Arguments and Developing a Position (We’re ready for RI.8!) SESSION MINUTES - 3:40-4:30

Session 4 Objectives At the end of the session, participants will be able to... Analyze how state standards RI.8 and W.1 relate to elements of argumentation Evaluate arguments based on a developing position on the issue 5 MINUTES Overview of Session 4 objectives. Move on to discuss the refocus on RI.8 and W.1 re EVALUATION

State Standard RI.8 RI.8.ANCHOR: Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. RI.9–10.8: Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning. RI.8.11–12: Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy. 5 MINUTES We have been focusing on the delineation of arguments and its implications for topical knowledge and vocabulary. We will now focus on another component of CCSS RI.8 and W.1 - evaluating arguments.

Also Preparation for State Standard W.1
W.1.a: Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. Participants link the EBA Checklist to Ri.8 and W.1 They should begin to see how W.1 is not only about writing, but also about content and reading (text) demands. Students cannot write counterclaims without having a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Activity 4.1: Evaluating Arguments
Read: Part 3, Activity 1 and scan the two texts: 9/11 Paul Wolfowitz Interview PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer September 14, 2001 “Our War on Terrorism,” Howard Zinn Use a checklist: Review Sections I and II of the Evidence-Based Arguments Criteria Checklist Select ONE of the arguments and evaluate it based on the checklist and your developing perspective on the topic. Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: How does the checklist help students evaluate an argument? How does the checklist address state standards RI.8 and W.1? Plenary discussion 20 MINUTES The EBA Criteria Checklist is in the participant packs. Plenary Discussion can focus on how students can use the Checklist to evaluate arguments and how RI.8 and W.1 are addressed.

Evaluating Compelling Arguments Using a Criteria Checklist
Students now use a handout to help them evaluate arguments and determine whether they are compelling. How do you see the CCSS reflected in the Checklist? Plenary Discussion can focus on how students can use the Checklist to evaluate arguments and how RI.8 and W.1 are addressed.

Activity 4.2: Determine Compelling Arguments
Read: Unit Plan Part 3, Activity 1: “evaluating an argument involves both an objective, criteria-based assessment of its strengths and weaknesses, and the consideration of one’s own developing position about the issue” Discuss with your Small Group: With this in mind, think about which arguments are compelling to you and why. What is your own developing position and how does your perspective help shape that position? 10 MINUTES Discussion should be limited to small groups.

End of Session 4 At this point, you: have a firm grasp of the topic
understand key argumentation terms can delineate and evaluate arguments using tools and checklists have written claims about an author’s perspective, position, and argument using tools have begun to develop your own perspective and position on the issue 10 MINUTES Overview and close of session 4.

End of Session 4 Questions regarding: Developing a perspective?
Using tools to delineate and evaluate arguments? The materials or instructional progression? The text sets? State staqndards RI.8, W.1?

Image credit: UnboundEd
NOTES: At the end of each day, we will build in time for you to take 3 minutes to complete an online survey about your experience on that day. Links will be on our website. Facilitators will address feedback the following day. These data are important for us to make each day better for you at SI. At the end of the day on Thursday, we will build in time for you to take 10 minutes to complete Knowledge Survey Post-Test. These data help us see what knowledge you are walking away with after attending SI. We will the survey link shortly before the end of the day. You will be able to compare how you did on the pre-test compared to the post-test. Image credit: UnboundEd 76

Tomorrow You Will Express Your Position
Homework: THINK about the topic and the texts you have read. TALK about the topic and the texts you have read. IF you want, RESEARCH and READ more perspectives. (Either from the unit texts or other sources)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK!!!
Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation Grades 9–12 ELA I Day 5

Good Morning Yesterday we:
Explored the relationship between building knowledge and developing literacy proficiency Studied RI.8 and W.1 closely Learned ways to teach state standards argumentation to all students Built our knowledge of the issue of responding to acts of terrorism Read, delineated, and evaluated arguments Began to develop and discuss our own positions on the topic 5 MINUTES Quick overview of previous day

Good Morning Today we will: Discuss the instructional demands of W.1
Consider another argument on our issue Develop and write our position Learn about a process to develop and strengthen writing Discuss Open Educational Resources and the OER Core Proficiencies Program Reflect on our experience this week and how will integrate what we have learned into our teaching practice 1 minute Quick overview of the day

Workshop Roadmap Session 5 Building an Evidence-Based Argument
DAY 2 Session 5 Building an Evidence-Based Argument Session 6 Supporting Students’ Argumentative Writing Break (15 minutes) Session 7 Exploring and Evaluating Our Arguments Lunch Session 8 Reflection on the Session and Week 1 minute Move from quick overview to the day’s sessions

Questions about yesterday or today?

Session 5: Building Evidence-Based Arguments

Session 5 Objectives At the end of the session, participants will be able to... Analyze the demands of W.1 with respect to topic and literacy proficiency Write a position statement on the issue Explain how the learning progression and unit materials support students in building evidence-based arguments 5 MINUTES Overview of Session 5 objectives

Returning to the Standard
Now that we’ve spent a day immersed in the Building Evidence- Based Arguments Unit and before we prepare to tackle W.1, let’s return to the language of the standard and consider again its demands.

Activity 5.1: Determining the Demands of W.1
Read W.1 Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What is your developing perspective on what W.1 for Grades 9–12 demands of students? What is your developing perspective on the type of “substantive topics” necessary for W.1? How confident do you feel in your perspective and knowledge about national responses to acts of terrorism? Plenary Discussion 10 MINUTES Participants review and discuss W.1 Plenary discussion should focus on any of the participants’ takeaways. Also, pull out “substantive topics” and “writing arguments…” - what is demanded here?

State Standards W.9–10.1 [LAFS.W.1.1]
W.9–10.1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. a: Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b: Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience's knowledge level and concerns. c: Use words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims. d: Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. e: Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.

State Standards W.11–12.1 [LAFS.W.1.1]
W.11-12: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence. a. Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence. b. Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases. c. Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims. d. Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing. e. Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.

Determining the Demands of W.1
“Substantive Topics”: Do not have one or even two clear positions Require evidence-based critical reading, thinking, and writing Are clearly relevant to students’ lives Build important knowledge in students Require time to explore Will produce disagreement among students and with their teachers 10 MINUTES If participants do not discuss “substantive topics,” make sure to draw this aspect of W.1 into the plenary discussion, highighting the bullet points.

Determining the Demands of W.1
“Writing arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics”: Requires evidence-based critical reading, thinking, and writing Builds important knowledge in students Requires time to explore Rests on proficiency with ALL of the grade-level Reading Standards 1–10 Should NOT be the first instructional objective tackled in the school year

OE Claim 4 For all learners to build knowledge and proficiency in state standards argumentation, we must use substantive topics that are relevant to students and provide a rich backdrop for learning argumentation. Return to OE Claim 4, which is explicitly connected to the subject of “substantive topics.” These two slides serve to show how the OE argumentation units use substantive topics to teach argumentative literacy skills. The Odell Education Core Proficiencies Program unit - Building Evidence-Based Arguments addresses the CCSS in an innovative and comprehensible way by breaking down the complexity of analyzing arguments into scalable progressive processes. The unit also identifies key areas on which students need to focus such as identifying and developing a position relative to the nature of an argument and identifying and delineating the critical pieces that make up a strong (or weak) argument. Each unit focuses on a substantive topic for students to analyze.

Building Evidence-Based Arguments Unit Topics
Grade Unit Title Unit Guiding Question Grade 6 “Energy Crossroads” How should states address the potential of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to access natural gas? Grade 7 “Doping can be that last 2 percent” What policies should institutions and leagues have regarding the use of performance-enhancing drugs in athletic competition? Grade 8 “E pluribus Unum” What should the basic tenets of current U.S. immigration policy be? Grade 9 “What is the virtue of a proportional response?” How should nations define and respond to acts of terrorism? Grade 10 “Search Warrant” How should the U.S. balance the need for national security with its citizens’ right to privacy? Grade 11 “Cuplae poena par esto: Let the punishment fit the crime” What should the purposes of the U.S. prison system be? Grade 12 “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” What are our social and economic responsibilities to those less fortunate than ourselves? Read through the titles/topics (and perhaps guiding questions) for each grade. These are examples of “substantive topics.” 93

Let’s take on W.1!

One Last Argument on the Topic…
Watch: Keyword search: “cnn obama deploying drones” Keyword search: “cnn Donald Trump on terrorists” Read: Keyword search: “nytimes Obama’s Speech on Drone Policy” 15 MINUTES - OPTIONAL READING If there is no extra time to read, point out how part of the nature of a substantive topic is that is is constantly revisited - complex issues are revisited over time due to new information, developments, actions, etc. This particular topic on responses to terrorism is an ongoing issue and will continue to be. Let’s look at some recent developments. OE also encourages teachers to research topically-aligned articles and update the text set to reflect current developments. Participants can read/watch one or all of these suggestions.

Activity 5.2: Developing a Position
Read Unit Plan Part 3, Activity 2. Review Arguments you have read and your analysis of those texts. Write a claim that states your position on the appropriate response to acts of terrorism. In Pairs: Read your position statements. Discuss what further evidence is needed to support your claims sufficiently. Write one inquiry question for each participant that needs to be addressed to support the position. 10 MINUTES Facilitator can walk the room to address individual questions.

Activity 5.3: Deepening Understanding
Read Unit Plan Part 3, Activity 3. Use the inquiry question you developed with your partner to conduct a short research project to find “relevant and sufficient evidence.” 10 MINUTES Optional activity where participants look for more material to further develop their position.

End of Session 5 Questions regarding: Developing a position?
The materials or instructional progression? The texts? State standards RI.8, W.1?

Session 6: Supporting Students’ Argumentative Writing

Session 6 Objectives At the end of the session, participants will be able to... Explain how students’ work with RI.8 directly supports their argumentative writing Use unit materials to organize their own argument Analyze and summarize the unit’s collaborative approach to developing and strengthening student writing 5 MINUTES Overview of Session 6 objectives. This session is largely about allowing the participants to conclude their work as students while also finalizing their understanding the demands of CCSS RI.8 and W.1, and how to teach RI.8 and W.1 together.

Activity 6.1: Teaching RI.8 and W.1 Together
Read: Unit Plan Part 3, Activities 4 and 5 (pp. 29–30), Zinn and Wolfowitz Complete either activity 4 or 5 to choosing one of the texts (depending on your position) Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: How does Zinn or Wolfowitz support or counter your own position? How do the texts, activities, and approaches connect students’ work with RI.8 to W.1? Plenary Discussion 25 MINUTES Participants only need to complete one of the Activities in the Unit

Activity 6.2: Organizing an Evidence-Based Argument
Read Unit Plan Part 4, Activities 3–5 (pp. 33–34) Use a Tool: Use either an Organizing EBC Tool or Delineating Arguments Tool to organize your claims and evidence to support your position. Discuss in Pairs your organizational plan for your argument based on your tools. Plenary Discussion: How does collaboration with peers support and clarify your thinking? How do these activities relate to the session Inquiry Questions? 10 MINUTES Facilitator can walk the room to address individual questions. Plenary discussion can also focus on how this development process reflects the reading process.

Activity 6.3: Review the Writing Approach of the Unit
Read and Annotate Unit Plan Part 5, Introduction and “A COLLABORATIVE, QUESTION- BASED APPROACH TO STRENGTHENING WRITING PRINCIPLES AND PROCESSES” (pp. 35– 38) Discuss in your small group using guiding questions: What stands out to you as significant? How does this process support all learners in the development of their writing? Plenary Discussion 15 MINUTES Writing process that can be used flexibly, can pick out specific editing processes - don’t have to do all of them. Students have already written much of the content over the course of the unit (e.g. Part 3, activities 4, 5). Students go through a drawn-out process to craft and recraft their essays so they have experience working with a large-scale paper in a collegiate atmosphere.

A Collaborative Approach to Developing and Strengthening Writing
The approach has students: Generate content in a variety of ways. Focus on one aspect of writing at a time in review and revision. Use questions and criteria to support review and revision. Follow teacher modeling to give and respond to feedback constructively. Repeat the process multiple times to focus on specific aspects of writing. Plenary discussion notes

End of Session 6 Questions regarding:
How student’s work on RI.8 supports their argumentative writing Unit activities and tools The collaborative process for developing and strengthening writing

Session 7: Exploring and Evaluating Our Arguments

Session 7 Objectives At the end of the session, participants will be able to... Use materials from Building EBA to review and evaluate each other’s arguments. Explain the various ways one can develop a position on the topic. 5 MINUTES Overview of Session 7 objectives This is a great opportunity to discover how others approached and understood the topic (perspective and position), as well as understand how students can achieve RI.8 and W.1

Activity 7.1: Finalizing Your Organizational Plans
Review, fine tune and organize your: perspective on the issue claim that states your position on the appropriate response to acts of terrorism claims and evidence that support your position delineation and evaluation of key arguments you have read and analyzed delineation and evaluation of counterarguments you have researched written evaluative EBC on one of arguments 10 MINUTES Participants review their argument “portfolio” (the work they have completed so far). As the participants gather and review their work, facilitator might point out how students will have compiled more work which will greatly support their efforts to write an argumentative essay.

Activity 7.2: Using the EBA Checklist to Reflect on Your Plan
Read the EBA Criteria Checklist Choose criteria from sections I, II or III you would like to use to probe your plan Write down a question that you want to ask a new partner about your organizational plan For example, Is my position “purposefully stated”? Do I have sufficient evidence to support my position? 10 MINUTES Facilitator can walk the room to address any inquiries.

Activity 7.3: Using the EBA Checklist to Evaluate Arguments
Talk over your organizational plan, position, evaluative claim (Zinn/Wolfowitz) with a new partner. Ask your partner your question that is tied to the EBA Criteria Checklist. Respond to your partner’s question with evidence-based feedback using the EBA Criteria Checklist as a guide. Reverse the process. 10 MINUTES Partners should be new, probably random.

Activity 7.4: Discussing the EBA Checklist to evaluate arguments
Discuss in small groups using guiding questions: How did the checklist help you think about your plan and what question(s) to ask? How did the collaborative process help you think about your work? Did your perspective prior to and after reading and analyzing texts change or remain the same? Why? How do the collaborative process and EBA Criteria Checklist help students develop and articulate an argument? Plenary discussion 10 MINUTES Partners should discuss the EBA Checklist and their findings

End of Session 7 Questions regarding:
How W.1 is addressed in the collaborative writing process? Unit activities and tools? The collaborative process for developing and strengthening writing?

Session 8: Reflecting on the Session
SESSION MINUTES - 11:30-12:00 This session is a BRIEF overview of the OE Core Proficiencies Program that builds on what participants experienced with Making EBC about Literary Technique--Francis Macomber the previous day, placing that experience in the context of the wider program, linking it to the Building Evidence-Based Arguments Unit, and highlighting the key features of the entire program.

Session 8: Reflection on this week’s work Objectives
Reflect on and discuss what we’ve learned about building knowledge and literacy proficiency in all students. Develop a plan for integrating what we’ve learned into our teaching practices. 5 MINUTES Overview of Session 8 objectives

What we have learned Demands of state standards RI.8 and W.1: vocabulary, substantive topics,

Activity 8.1: Considering our Inquiry Questions
Write one claim about your experience this week in relationship to the two core Inquiry Questions: What is the relationship between building knowledge and developing proficiency? How do we design instruction that builds knowledge and develops literacy proficiency in ALL learners? Discuss in small groups your exploration of the Inquiry Questions using your claims. 5 MINUTES

Activity 8.2: Implementing Argumentation in Our Classrooms
Re-read any part in the Unit Plan that intrigued or challenged you. Reflect on or write a lesson plan to teach that part in your own learning environment. Discuss in your small group: What social issue would be engaging for your students? What steps do you need to take to implement your lesson? What challenges do you see implementing the lesson and what steps can you take to address them? 15 MINUTES Plenary discussion What are the perceived challenges with implementing RI.8/W.1-aligned instruction?

Thank You for All Your Hard Work! Safe Travels

Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation Grades 9–12 ELA I Day 4 Credit: Nick Lue.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation Grades 9–12 ELA I Day 4 Credit: Nick Lue."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation Grades 9–12 ELA I Day 4 Credit: Nick Lue.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Building Knowledge and Literacy Proficiency Through Teaching Argumentation Grades 9–12 ELA I Day 4 Credit: Nick Lue."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback