1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 12, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the relations between oral and written argumentation in two contexts: written assignments and structured interviews among Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish students in Israeli higher education. The segregated education system for Haredi students focuses on dyadic oral discussions about religious texts. When Haredi men start their way in academia, they move from an oral to a written culture. To understand this complex process, I compared forty argumentative essays and structured interviews of Ultra-Orthodox students. I identified which argumentative patterns recurred or differed across the two contexts. The comparison elicited complex findings: whereas dialectic patterns of weighing supporting and opposing arguments and counterarguments were prominent in both contexts, sweeping generalizations and firm arguments were found mainly in the essays. The similarity of the argumentative patterns in writing and in the interviews may be explained by the stability of argument schemata across different contexts. The findings expand on previous theoretical and empirical findings and demonstrate how the dialectic process of examining different perspectives leads to complex positions. Finally, I present educational implications for teaching argumentation, such as careful activity design and choosing discussion topics that elicit weighing and sophisticated arguments.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse
2023-09-15
2025-04-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S. Y., Reznitskaya, A., ... & Gilbert, L.
    (2001) The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and instruction, 19(1), 1–46. 10.1207/S1532690XCI1901_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1901_1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asterhan, C. S.
    (2018) Exploring enablers and inhibitors of productive peer argumentation: The role of individual achievement goals and of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 541, 66–78. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B.
    (2016) Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187. 10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B.
    (2019) Collaborative argumentation-based learning. InThe Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp.76–88). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429441677‑8
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429441677-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y.
    (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M., & Hacohen, G.
    (2002) Traditions of dispute: From negotiations of talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(10–11), 1569–1594. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00076‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00076-0 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, B.
    (2017) The Haredim: A guide to their beliefs and sectors. Tel Aviv: Am Oved [Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chafe, W.
    (1985) Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. InD. R. Olson, A. Hildyard, & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy, Language, and Learning (pp.105–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, Y.-C., Park, S., & Hand, B.
    (2016) Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147. 10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I.-H., & Li, Y.
    (2008) Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 400–424. 10.1598/RRQ.43.4.5
     https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.4.5 [Google Scholar]
  11. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.
    (2012) Argumentation in science education research: Perspectives from Europe. InScience Education Research and Practice in Europe (pp.253–289). Brill Sense. 10.1007/978‑94‑6091‑900‑8_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_11 [Google Scholar]
  12. Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J.-Y.
    (2015) Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–12. 10.1186/s40594‑015‑0020‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J.
    (2004) TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. 10.1002/sce.20012
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012 [Google Scholar]
  14. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D.
    (2001) The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 135–153. 10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_03
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_03 [Google Scholar]
  15. Friedman, M.
    (1991) The Haredi (ultra-orthodox) society: Sources, trends and processes. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hong, Z.-R., Lin, H., Wang, H.-H., Chen, H.-T., & Yang, K.-K.
    (2013) Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students’ attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625–1648. 10.1080/09500693.2012.734935
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.734935 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hsin, L. B., & Snow, C. E.
    (2020) Arguing for Teachers and for Friends: Eighth-graders’ Sensitivity to Argumentation Features When Judging and Revising Persuasive Essays. Discourse Processes, 57(10), 823–843. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1803032
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1803032 [Google Scholar]
  18. Iordanou, K., & Kuhn, D.
    (2020) Contemplating the opposition: Does a personal touch matter?Discourse Processes, 57(4), 343–359. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1701918
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1701918 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaplan, K.
    (2006) “Many are the afflictions of the righteous”: An outline of the history of Haredi journalism in Israel. Tel Aviv: Tal Aviv University Press [Hebrew].
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kolstø, S. D.
    (2006) Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716. 10.1080/09500690600560878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuhn, D.
    (1991) The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511571350
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kuhn, D., & Moore, W.
    (2015) Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 66–78. 10.1080/23735082.2015.994254
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.994254 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H.
    (2010) Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26–49. 10.1080/01638531003653344
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638531003653344 [Google Scholar]
  24. Malach, G., & Cahaner, L.
    (2016) The Yearbook of Ultra-Orthodox Society in Israel 2018. The Israel Democracy Institute, 135–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F.
    (1996) Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178. 10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mercer, N., & Howe, C.
    (2012) Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J.
    (2011) Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304. 10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4
     https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.3.4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nussbaum, E. M., Dove, I. J., Slife, N., Kardash, C. M., Turgut, R., & Vallett, D.
    (2019) Using critical questions to evaluate written and oral arguments in an undergraduate general education seminar: A quasi-experimental study. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1531–1552. 10.1007/s11145‑018‑9848‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9848-3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V.
    (2011) Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443–488. 10.1080/10508406.2011.564567
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G.
    (2007) Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59‑92
     https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92 [Google Scholar]
  31. Poole, D.
    (2003) Linguistic connections between co-occurring speech and writing in a classroom literacy event. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 103–134. 10.1207/S15326950DP3502_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Proctor, K., Lily, I., & Su, W.
    (2011) The 1st person plural in political discourse – American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3251–3266. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  33. Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.-Y.
    (2001) Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 155–175. 10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_04
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_04 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L.
    (2002) Investigating the Crossroads of Socioscientific Issues, the Nature of Science, and Critical Thinking.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L.
    (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27. 10.1002/sce.10101
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2005) Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138. 10.1002/tea.20042
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042 [Google Scholar]
  37. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C.
    (1987) Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 142–175.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M.
    (2003) Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(2), 219–256. 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schwarz, B. B.
    (2011) Hevruta’learning in Lithuanian Yeshivas: Recurrent learning of Talmudic issues. Education and Religion: Authority and Autonomy, 279–308.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Schwarz, B. B., & Bekerman, Z.
    (2021) Learning practices and development in yeshivas: Historical, social, and cultural perspectives. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(4), 1181–1198. 10.1007/s10212‑020‑00508‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00508-y [Google Scholar]
  41. Schwarz, B. B., Bekerman, Z., & Ben-Haim, R.
    (2019) Diving into Yeshiva’s talk practices: Chavruta argumentation between individual and community towards crystallizing methods. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 221, 100315. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sofer, G., Pompian, S., & Gafni, N.
    (2013) Developing the writing task in the oral section of the Psychometric Entrance Test to higher education. Israeli National Institute for Testing & Evaluation. https://www.nite.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/388.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Toulmin, S. E.
    (2003) The uses of argument. Cambridge university press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsemach, E., & Zohar, A.
    (2020) From Yeshiva to Academia: The Argumentative Writing Characteristics of Ultra-Orthodox Male Students. Argumentation, 1–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2021) The intersection of gender and culture in argumentative writing. International Journal of Science Education, 1–22. 10.1080/09500693.2021.1894499
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1894499 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tsemach, E., Zohar, A., & Olshtain, E.
    (2020) From Yeshiva to Academia: The Argumentative Writing Characteristics of Haredi Male Students. DAPIM Journal for Studies and Research in Education, 721.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J.
    (2013) Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62. 10.1177/0741088312469013
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312469013 [Google Scholar]
  48. Walton, D.
    (2008) Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C.
    (2007) High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187. 10.1080/09500690601083375
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375 [Google Scholar]
  50. Yeung, P., Ho, C. S., Chan, D. W., & Chung, K. K.
    (2013) Contribution of oral language skills, linguistic skills, and transcription skills to Chinese written composition among fourth-grade students. Discourse Processes, 50(7), 498–529. 10.1080/0163853X.2013.841070
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.841070 [Google Scholar]
  51. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D.
    (2019) New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1–9. 10.1186/s43031‑019‑0008‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F.
    (2002) Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. 10.1002/tea.10008
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse
Loading
Comparison of oral and written argumentation by Ultra-OrthodoxJewish students
Journal of Argumentation in Context 12, 135 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; oral argumentation; persuasive essays; structured interview; Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews; written assignments

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error