Project Activities
Structured Abstract
Setting
Sample
Research design and methods
Control condition
Key measures
Data analytic strategy
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Products and publications
Products: This information will be used to generate a set of instructional factors highly correlated with high quality student learning of argumentative writing, a classroom-based model of how these instructional factors can be effectively orchestrated, and published reports.
ERIC Citations: Find available citations in ERIC for this award here.
Book
Newell, G.E., Bloome, D., and Hirvela, A. (2015). Teaching and Learning Argumentative Writing in High School English Language Arts Classrooms. Routledge.
Book chapter
Newell, G.E., VanderHeide, J., and Wilson, M. (2013). Best Practices in Teaching Informative Writing From Sources. In S. Graham, C. MacArthur, and A. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best Practices in Writing Instruction (pp. 141-165). New York: Guilford Press.
Journal article, monograph, or newsletter
Bloome, D., and Beauchemin, F. (2016). Languaging Everyday Life in Classrooms. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 65(1): 152-165.
Newell, G.E., Beach, R.W., Smith, J., and VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and Learning Argumentative Reading and Writing: A Review of Research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3): 273-304.
Newell, G.E., VanDerHeide, J., and Wynhoff-Olsen, A. (2013). Learning From (and With) Expert Teachers of Argumentative Writing. Adolescent Literacy In Perspective: 4-7.
Weyand, L., Goff, B., and Newell, G. (2018). The Social Construction of Warranting Evidence in Two Classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(1): 97-122.
Wynhoff-Olsen, A., Ryu, S., and Bloome, D. (2013). (Re)constructing Rationality and Social Relations in the Teaching and Learning of Argumentative Writing in Two High School English Language Arts Classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research Yearbook, 62: 360.
Supplemental information
Co-Principal Investigators: Bloome, David; Hirvela, Alan; Marks, Helen
Each of the 48 classrooms will be videotaped and observed for one full instructional unit (approximately 3–5 days). One week prior to the teachers' implementation of the instructional unit, the research team will send the teachers the pretest of argumentative writing in order for this initial assessment to be completed before the start of the collection of the observational data. The writing prompt will be based on or taken from the NAEP assessment of persuasive writing. Over the course of the unit, the team will conduct pre-instruction interviews and post-instruction interviews, take field notes during classroom observations, video-record classroom instruction, collect background questionnaires and teachers' daily journals.
Student writing will be evaluated using both analytic and holistic methods. The analytic scoring will focus on characteristics such as fluency, flexibility, focus, and form and the holistic scoring will rely on a single overall score.
The team will conduct a series of descriptive analyses—using techniques such as cross tabulations, one-way or two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and correlational analyses—to explore the relationships between classroom instructional practices and student writing performance.
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
