Overview

1. Argumentative Researchmr. Becker's Classroom
2. Argumentative Researchmr. Becker's Classrooms
3. Argumentative Researchmr. Becker's Classroom Assessment

Becker's Classroom! This is where you'll come to find information that you need about the class, events that happen in Grades 7-12, and see evidence of what we have done! As set by the organization team, the general aim of TSG 21 was, in the international mathematics education community, to elevate people’s understanding of the importance, specific nature, and challenges in research on classroom practice, to promote exchanges and collaborations in identifying and examining high-quality practices in classroom instruction across different education systems,. Developed by psychotherapist Carl Rogers and adapted to rhetoric by writing scholars Young, Becker, and Pike, the speaker seeks compromise, acknowledging positive aspects of each party’s argument to arrive at a mutually-beneficial solution to an issue. Argument: Debate. Friday Maybe add a day and insert an activity. Guided instruction. No bell activity. Discuss the questions generated by each side of the argument. New Argument: Evidence that Rainsford has decided Killing a human being is acceptable. Gary Becker and Kevin M. Murphy in their article, “The Upside of Income Inequality,” delve into a side of a topic that has popular rebuttals. Both having credentials to boost their credibilities, Becker and Murphy provide a comprehensive argument to shed light on wage gaps due to education progression.

Included here is a summary of three different models of argument. These models provide possible ways to organize an effective argument, which I hope will be helpful to your organization of your own argument. This information is summarized from the following source: Georgia State University, Department of English. (2008). First Arguments: A Peer Approach to Persuasion. Plymouth, Michigan: Hayden McNeil.

The Classical Approach

The classical approach to argument is a model of argumentation invented by the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. It is best used when the purpose of your argument is to persuade your audience to agree with your point of view, take your side on an issue, or make a decision in your favor. The classical approach/Aristotelian model relies heavily on the use of ethos, pathos, and logos appeals.The following is the typical organization pattern for this approach:

Argumentative Researchmr. Becker's Classroom

• Introduction
• State your case–Clarify your issue. Give any necessary background for understanding the issues. Define any important terms of conditions here.
• Propostion–State your central proposition or thesis. Present the subtopics or supportive points to forecast your argument for your reader.
• Refutation–Analyze the opposition’s argument and summarize it; refute or address the points; point out faulty reasoning and inappropriate appeals.
• Substantiation and Proof–Develop your own case. Use ethos, pathos, and logos appeals to make your case. Use good evidence such as examples.
• Conclusion

The Toulmin Approach

This model of argument was developed by the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin. The Toulmin Model is especially helpful when you try to make a case on controversial issues that do not have an absolute truth as the Toulmin Model seeks to establish probabilities rather than truth.The following is a typical organization for the Toulmin Model:

• Claims–There’re several different types of claims: claims of fact, claims of definition, claims of cause, claims of value, and claims of policy. You can use any one or more of these claims to introduce your issue and to establish your case.
• Data–Information you use to support your claims.
• Warrant–The assumption made by a writer in order for the claim to be true.
• Backing–What you use to support the warrant.
• Rebuttal–This is where you consider the opposing viewpoint and refute it.
• Qualifer–Use language that seeks to qualify the claims you make in order to bring your argument to a close.

The Rogerian Approach

This is a model of argument named after the psychologist Carl Rogers, who believed that people could only resolve an issue or solve a problem once they found the “common ground.” A group of rhetoricians, Young, Becker, and Pike, then developed a model of argument named the Rogerian argument, which advocates a way of argument that is less confrontational, less one-sided, and more compromising and deliberately consensus-building. The following are the usual elements of the Rogerian approach:

Argumentative Researchmr. Becker's Classrooms

• An introduction that briefly and objectively defines the issue or problem
• A neutral, non-judgmental statement of the opponent’s position, presented within valid contexts, that demonstrates the writer clearly understands it
• A neutral statement and explanation of your position and the contexts in which it is valid
• An analysis of what the two positions have in common and what goals and values they share
• A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the itnerests of both parties, or a statement of how the opponent’s position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer’s position

Your Approach

The above approaches provide proven organizational tools you could use for your argument. What approach you use, however, doesn’t necessarily have to conform exactly to one of these approaches. In fact, it is quite common for people to combine some of the elements of these approaches based on the needs of their argument.

Argumentative Researchmr. Becker's Classroom Assessment

1. Alton-Lee, A. & Nuthall, G: 1991, Understanding Learning and Teaching: Phase Two: Final Report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education, Education Department, University of Canterbury, Canterbury.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, F.: 1995, Classroom Discourse and Language Socialization in a Japanese Elementally-School Setting: An Ethnographic-Linguistic Study, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Mänoa, Honolulu.Google Scholar
3. Au, K.H-R & Jordan, C.: 1981, ‘Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appropriate solution’, in H.T. Trueba, G.R Guthrie & K.H-R Au (eds.), Culture and the Bilingual Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography, Newbury House, Rowley, MA, 139–152.Google Scholar
4. Bailey, K.M. & Nunan, D.: 1996, Voices from the Language Classroom; Qualitative Research in Second Language Education, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
5. Becker, H.S., Geer, B. et al.: 1961, Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
6. Bernstein, B.: 1977, Class, Codes and Control, Second Edition, Vol. 3 of Towards a Theory of Educational Transmission, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
7. Boggs, S.T.: 1985, Speaking, Relating and Learning: A Study of Hawaiian Children at Home and at School, with the Assistance of K.A. Watson-Gegeo & G. McMillen, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
8. Cazden, C.B.: 1986, Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.Google Scholar
9. Cazden, C.B., John, V.P. & Hymes, D. (eds.): 1972, Functions of Language in the Classroom, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
10. Cook, H.M.: 1996, ‘The use of addressee honorifics in Japanese elementary school classrooms’, in N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki & S. Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Volume 5, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford, 67–81.Google Scholar
11. Corrigan, P.: 1979, Schooling the Smash Street Kids, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
12. Erickson, F.D.: 1985, ‘Qualitative methods in research on teaching’, in M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (third edition), Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
13. Foley, D.E.: 1991, ‘Reconsidering anthropological explanations of ethnic school failure’, Anthropology and Education Quarterly 22, 60–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gumperz, J.J. & Cook-Gumperz, J.: 1980, Beyond Ethnography: Some Uses ofSociolin-guisticsfor Understanding Classroom Environments, Bilingual Education Paper Series 4,3, National Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
15. Habermas, J.: 1979, Communication and the Evolution of Society, Beacon, Boston.Google Scholar
16. Halliday, M.A.K.: 1976, System and Function in Language, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
17. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R.: 1976, Cohesion in English, Longman, London.Google Scholar
18. Hammersley, M.: 1974, ‘The organisation of pupil participation’, Sociological Review 22(3), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Hammersley, M.: 1990, Classroom Ethnography: Empirical and Methodological Essays, Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
20. Hargreaves, A.: 1978, ‘The significance of classroom coping strategies’, in L. Barton & R. Meighan (eds.), Sociological Interpretations of Schooling and Classrooms, Nafferton, Driffield, England, 73–100.Google Scholar
21. Heath, S.B.: 1983, Ways With Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
22. Helton, A.M. & Paaby, K.: 1978, Tampen Braender: En Analyse af Undervisning Som Samtale, Hans Reitsels, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
23. Henry, J.: 1971, Essays on Education, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
24. Hornberger, N.: 1988, ‘Iman Chay?: Quechua children in Peru’s schools’, in H. Trueba & C. Delgado-Gaitan (eds.), School and Society: Teaching Content Through Culture, Praeger, New York, 99–117.Google Scholar
25. Hymes, D.: 1980, Language in Education: Ethnolinguistic Essays, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
26. Hymes, D.: 1981, ‘Ethnographic monitoring’, in H.T. Trueba, G.P. Guthrie & K.H-P. Au (eds.), Culture and the Bilingual Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography, Newbury House, Rowley, MA, 56–68.Google Scholar
27. Jackson, P.: 1968, Life in Classrooms, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
28. Jones, A.: 1991, “At School I’ve Got a Chance”: Culture/Privilege: Pacific Islands and Pakeha Girls at School, Dunmore, Palmerston North.Google Scholar
29. Kimball, S.T.: 1974, Culture and the Educative Process: An Anthropological Perspective, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
30. Lemke, J.L.: 1990, Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
31. Lightfoot, S.L.: 1983, The Good High School: Portraits of Character and Culture, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
32. Malcolm, I.: 1979, ‘The West Australian aboriginal child and classroom interaction: A sociolinguistic approach’, Journal of Pragmatics 3, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Masemann, V.: 1982, ‘Critical ethnography in the study of comparative education’, Comparative Education Review 26(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. May, S.: 1994, Making Multicultural Education Work, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar
35. McDermott, R.P.: 1976, Kids Make Sense: An Ethnographic Account of the Interactional Management of Success and Failure in One First Grade Classroom. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
36. McLaren, P.: 1986, Schooling as a Ritual Performance: Towards a Political Economy of Educational Symbols and Gestures, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.Google Scholar
37. Mehan, H.: 1978, Learning Lessons: The Social Organization of Classroom Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
38. Ogbu, J.U.: 1974, The Next Generation: An Ethnography of Education in an Urban Neighborhood, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
39. Okano, K.: 1993, School to Work Transition in Japan: An Ethnographic Study, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar
40. Philips, S.U.: 1972, ‘Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom’, in C.B. Cazden, V.P. John & D. Hymes (eds.), Functions of Language in the Classroom, Teachers College Press, New York, 370–394.Google Scholar
41. Rist, R.: 1970, ‘Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in Ghetto education’, Harvard Educational Review 40, 411–451.Google Scholar
42. Rist, R.: 1980, ‘Blitzkrieg ethnography: On the transformation of a method into a movement’, Educational Researcher (9), 8–10.Google Scholar
43. Shultz, J.J., Florio, S. & Erickson, F.: 1982, ‘Where’s the floor?: Aspects of the cultural organization of social relationships in communication at home and in school’, in P. Gilmore & D.M. Smith (eds.), Children In and Out of School: Ethnography and Education, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, 88–123.Google Scholar
44. Sinclair, J. McH. & Coulthard, M.: 1975, Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
45. Spindler, G.D.: 1973, Burgbach: Urbanization and Identity in a German Village, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
46. Spindler, G.D. & Spindler, L.: 1987, Interpretive Ethnography of Education: At Home and Abroad, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
47. Stubbs, M.: 1986, ‘Scratching the surface: Linguistic data in educational research’, in M. Hammersley (ed.), Controversies in Classroom Research, Open University, Philadelphia, 62–103.Google Scholar
48. van Lier, L.: 1988, The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and Second Language Classroom Research, Longman, New York.Google Scholar
49. Watson-Gegeo, K.A.: 1988, ‘Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials’, TESOL Quarterly 22, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Watson-Gegeo, K.A. & Gegeo, D.W.: 1994, ‘Keeping culture out of the classroom in rural Solomon Islands schools: A critical analysis’, Educational Foundations 8(2), 27–55.Google Scholar
51. Willis, P.: 1977, Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs, Saxon House, Farnborough.Google Scholar
52. Woods, P.: 1975, ‘Showing them up in secondary school’, in G. Chañan & S. Dela-mont (eds.), Frontiers of Classroom Research, National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough, 122–145.Google Scholar
53. Woods, P.: 1985, ‘Ethnography and theory construction in educational research’, in R.G. Burgess (ed.), Field Methods in the Study of Education, Falmer Press, Lewes, 51–78.Google Scholar
54. Young, R.: 1992, Critical Theory and Classroom Talk, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.Google Scholar