Narrative and Argumentative Writing

Synthesis
Narrative Writing: McKeough:
Features of narrative texts: sequentiality, particularity, intentional states, and canonicity and breach (which addresses plot development and character development)
Development of narrative features:

• 1st grade: able to introduce characters, express characters' feelings and desires in relation to conflict, identify at least one explicit mental state, and create appropriate sequence of events
• 1st-2nd grade: able to include breach and characters' mental states and a resolution
• 3rd-4th grade: able to write more complicated event(s) that impede resolution and add more mental states
• 5th grade: able to fully resolve problems and complications in resolution, fully reveal characters' motivation
• 6th-7th grade: able to reconcile various experiences with characters' personality traits or enduring mental states thereby making more psychologically complex characters
• 8th-9th grade: able to include additional enduring states and traits that appear as both internal and external conflict
• High School: able to increase psychological complexity and resolve dialectic of internal and external conflict through literary devices such as psychological/social similes and metaphors, flashback and foreshadowing, paradoxical consequences or juxtaposed alternatives, and perspective taking

Supporting Development: Teachers must show students how to read established narratives with a "Writer's Eye" which takes into account the following: literary elements and techniques, setting and character selection development, text structure, diction, author's purpose, and author's choice of genre. Students must analyze the features after they have read the text for comprehension, and texts must get incrementally complex as students age. After analyzation, students must be challenged to mirror the author's strategies in their own writings. In middle and high school, teachers need to be conscious to include more narrative writings in their curriculums and can begin placing more emphasis on character development. 

Argumentative Writing: Ferretti and Lewis:
While we all consistently engage in argumentative discourse, woefully few of us are considered skilled arguers as our arguments are poorly developed and do not take alternative perspectives into account. The same applies to students' writings, but they typically also lack transitions among arguments and do not attempt to integrate or rebut alternative perspectives.  The use of verbal discourse to establish standards of quality argumentative thinking and develop students' ability to think and write argumentatively through partner work or online discussions. This approach forces students to address and rebut alternative perspectives which they can then translate into their writing.  Students must understand that resolving an argument through writing is a problem-solving process, and strategies must be taught to help them manage this type of writing.  Students must systematically progress from writing on commonplace topics to literacy and content-area based topics as these require higher-level thinking and incorporate highly specialized knowledge and skills and the ability to critically evaluate opposing views. Writing arguments at this level establishes higher levels of content comprehension and application.
Dialogic Approach: 
Teachers must not be apprehensive about introducing topics that can create conflict and competition because topics that don't lend themselves to some degree of controversy translate to ineffective, inauthentic argumentative output that lack any argument at all. Teachers must incorporate writings for real audiences that are based on real-world social topics that students have vested interest. These writings encourage broader thinking especially about the alternative perspective and more application of the rebuttal technique. Again, using dialogue, face-to-face interactions allows students to successfully establish the components of a successful argument through role-play, and these role-plays can scaffold the writing process and act as a pre-writing technique that produces a more effective product. They also "normalize" the ability to acknowledge and address alternative viewpoints. Technology can improve argumentative writing as well, and if done correctly, technology improves argumentative thinking better than frequent, consistent essay writing.
Strategies:
SRSD (self-regulated strategy development) provides this support through 6 phases:

•  Develop Background Knowledge: strategy's purposes and benefits explained
• Discuss It: strategies taught through mnemonics
• TREE (develop argument): Topic, Reasons for opinion, Examine reason from audience's perspective, Ending
• PLANS (plan): Pick goals, List ways to meet goals, Notes (make them), Sequence notes
• STOP (plan): Suspend judgement, Take a side, Organize ideas, Plan as you write
• DARE (plan): Develop topic sentence, Add supporting details, Reject possible arguments from other side, End with conclusion
• AIMS (introduction): Attract reader's attention, Identify the problem of the topic so reader understands the issues, Map the context of the problem/provide background needed to understand problem, State thesis so premise is clear
• SCAN (revision): Does it make Sense? Is it Connected to my belief? Can I Add more? Note Errors.
• ASCQ (revision through critical questions): Ask and Answer Critical Questions; argument from consequences strategy (policy based on potential positive/negative consequences) and argument from example strategy (cases and instances to illustrate generalized claim)
• PLAN & WRITE (plan/draft): Pay attention to prompt, List main ideas, Add supporting ideas, Number your ideas before drafting, Work from plan to develop thesis, Remember goals, Include transition words, Try to use different types of sentences, add Exciting, interesting words
• Model It: strategies are modeled for students
• Memorize It: mnemonics are memorized through practice
• Support It: student assumes more responsibility for applying strategy
• Practice It: strategy is internalized, maintained and generalized

Content-Area Arguments:

Literary: Students must first be able to analyze and interpret literature by recognizing patterns of language that allow students to comprehend and interpret the text. They must also translate their interpretations into a written argument supported by repetitions (repeated patterns of imagery, symbolism, syntactic elements) and oppositions (repeated patterns that stand in opposition to one another) through quotes, references to the text, and explanations.

Strategy: THE READER to plan and write interpretative arguments based on repetitions and oppositions:

• Develop a THEsis
• Back up the thesis with REAsons
• Include Details through quotes and text references
• Explain how quotes and text references are related to reasons/thesis
• Review main points in a conclusion

Historical: Students must construct an interpretation of an event based on the analysis of various sources and evidences through corroboration, contextualization, and sourcing. 

Strategy: This can be done through STOP and DARE strategies as well as an historical reasoning strategy that includes two self-questioning routines:

• Consider source and analyze for inaccuracy and answer 3 questions:
• What was author's purpose?
• Do the reasons make sense? 
• Do you find evidence of bias (examine word choice and how many points of view were in document)?
• Focus on conflicting perspectives and answer 5 questions:
• Is author inconsistent?
• Is person described differently?
• Is even described differently?
• What is missing from author's argument?
• What can you infer from reading across sources?

Response:

Text-to-self: I have struggled with getting my students to see, acknowledge, and dispute an opposing argument. We will be writing an argumentative essay in a couple weeks, and I'm going to try a couple of the strategies to see how much of a difference they make.

Text-to-text: The approaches to analyzing literary and historical texts in the Ferretti and Lewis article mirror what we've read in the Hinchman and Jetton texts, especially corroboration, contextualization and sourcing in history.

Text-to-world: I think one of the reasons students have such a hard time seeing both sides of an argument is that representation of alternate viewpoints in society, politics, and media typically takes the form of a list of negative characteristics and ideals. They do not typically present a developed counter-argument. Examining these in class and discussing what would make them better could be one way for students to become more aware as well.

Questions:

1. What method do you use to teach argumentative writing, and do you typically write essays or do have your students produce an alternative form?

2. In the secondary setting, what narrative writings have you assigned, and what expectations and rubrics did you give students? Do you feel it was successful?