The Role of Argumentative Writing in Teaching Controversial Issues: A Mixed Methods Research

Abstract

This study aims to examine the role of argumentative writing in teaching controversial issues in Social Studies education. We employed the convergent design, as a mixed methods approach. The sample consisted of 49 prospective Social Studies teachers. Data were collected through an attitude scale towards controversial issues, semi-structured interview forms, focus group interviews, and respondents’ diaries. The respondents were also asked to write argumentative essays on particular controversial issues (i.e., brain migration, technology, nuclear energy, and different types of government) in the Social Studies course. The written tasks were evaluated throughout the period. Descriptive and predictive analytics were used to examine the quantitative data, while content and descriptive analyses were made on the qualitative data, which were additionally analysed by MAXQDA 2020. A statistical significance was found between the respondents’ pre-test and post-test scores regarding controversial issues. It appeared that drawing on controversial issues was effective in developing certain skills such as researching, critical thinking, recognizing one’s own opinions, respecting different opinions, using scientific evidence, and making assessments. We believe that argumentative writing plays a critical role in developing these skills, which are likely to come out while teaching controversial issues. It could be assumed that writing argumentative essays is an alternative way for teachers to create a democratic classroom atmosphere while teaching controversial issues.

Keywords

• Controversial issues
• argumentative writing
• social studies teaching

References

1. Abu-Hamdan, T. & Khader, F. (2014). Social studies teachers' perceptions on teaching contemporary controversial issues. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(10), 70-78.
2. Aguirre-Mendez, C., Chen, Y. C., Terada, T. & Techawitthayachinda, R. (2020). Predicting components of argumentative writing and achievement gains in a general chemistry course for nonmajor college students. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(8), 2045-2056. doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00042
3. Allison M. Kroesch, Katherine N. Peeples, Courtney L. Pleasant & Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino (2021). Let’s argue: developing argumentative writing skills for students with learning disabilities, Reading & Writing Quarterly, Doi: 10.1080/10573569.2021.1970659
4. Anggraeny, E. & Putra, J. R. (2017). Critical thinking in students' Process of writing the argumentative essay. Journal of English Language Learning, 1(1), 92-108.
5. Apter, E. J. (2016). Current controversial issues in history classrooms: Two high school teachers' practices and views (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Fordham University. ABD.
6. Arroyo, R., Fernández-Lancho, E. & Martínez E. (2021). Digital Competence in Learning Written Academic Argumentation, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 16(1), 115-121, Doi: 10.1109/RITA.2021.3052678.
7. Avaroğulları, M. (2015). An Action research regarding controversial issues ın social studies instruction. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy,10(2), 139-150. Doi:10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.2.1C0638
8. Aynuz, A. (2020). The percetions, attitudes and opinions of teacher candidates of social studies towards teaching controversial topics (Master Thesis). Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.

9. Baki-Pala, Ç. (2020). Exploring controversial and sensitive issues in the context of social studies educatıon: An action research. (Unpublished Doctoral Distertation). Marmara University, İstanbul.
10. Baloğlu-Uğurlu, N. & Doğan, A. (2016). Social studies teacher candidates’ and academicians’ opinions about teaching of controversial ıssues, Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 17(3), 219-237. Doi: 10.17679/inuefd.17327087
11. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M. & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58. Doi:10.3102/00346543074001029
12. Byford, J., Lennon, S. & Russell, W. B. (2009). Teaching controversial issues in the social studies: A research study of high school teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(4), 165-170.
13. Campbell, Y. C. & Filimon, C. (2018). Supporting the argumentative writing of students in linguistically diverse classrooms: An action research study. RMLE Online, 41(1), 1-10.
14. Can, A. (2017). SPPS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (5. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
15. Cannard, K. (2005). Embracing Controversy in the Classroom. Science Scope, 28(8), 14-17.
16. Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235-1276.
17. Cheng-Yu Fan. & Gwo-Dong Chen (2021) A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1-2), 159-183, Doi: 10.1080/09588221.2019.166 0685
18. Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. Collaborative Learning, Reasoning, and Technology, 355-383.
19. Collum, M. (2016). Academic freedom and the social studies educator. Social Education, 80(3), 186-186. Retrieved from www.socialstudies.org
20. Copur, A. & Demirel, M. (2016). Turkish social studies teachers’ thoughts about the teaching of controversial issues. JSSE-Journal of Social Science Education, 15(2), 80-95.
21. Cotton, D. R. (2006). Teaching controversial environmental issues: Neutrality and balance in the reality of the classroom. Educational research, 48(2), 223-241. Doi: 10.1080/00131880600732306
22. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Karma yöntem araştırmalarına giriş (M. Sözbilir, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
23. Creswell, J.W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
24. Creswell, J.W. & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting: Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.
25. Çepni, Z. & Geçit, Y. (2020). Social studies teacher candidates' attitudes and views regarding socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Geography and Geography Education (IGGE), 42, 133-154.
26. Dearden, R. F. (1981). Controversial issues and the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 37-44. Doi: 10.1080/0022027810130105 Demircioğlu, İ. H. (2016). Using controversial issues in history lessons: Views of Turkish history teachers. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(1), 147-162.
27. Deniz, S. (2018). Teachers' opınıons on whether controversıal ıssues are ıncluded ın currıculum of elementary schools (Unpublished Master Thesis). Inonu University, Malatya.
28. Dewhurst, D. W. (1992). The teaching of controversial issues. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 26(2), 153-163. Diaz, C. R. (2017). Assessing the Impact of 6+ 1 Traits® of Writing on Improving Argumentative Writing Skills of Fifth Grade Students (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of South Alabama.
29. Dingler, M. (2017). Arguing for democracy: A multimodal approach to argumentative writing instruction in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 108(3), 111-119.
30. Drid, T. (2014). Exploring the use of through-argumentation and counter-argumentation in Arabic-Speaking EFL learners' argumentative essays. Arab World English Journal, 5(4).
31. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
32. Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K. & Erduran, S. (1999). Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
33. Dynneson, T. L. & Gross, R. E. (1985). An eclectic approach to citizenship: Developmental stages. The Social Studies, 76(1), 23-27.
34. Ebadi, S. & Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners’ critical thinking and academic writing skills: a mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31:5-6, 617-651, Doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757
35. Ersoy, F. (2013). Factors affecting the participation of social studies teacher candidates in discussions on controversial ıssues. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 4(1), 24-48.
36. Fakhruddin, M. & Soekardjo, M. (2021). The Dilemma of teachers in teaching controversial ıssues of ındonesian history. In First International Conference on Science, Technology, Engineering and Industrial Revolution (ICSTEIR 2020) (pp. 619-622). Atlantis Press.
37. Fan, C. Y. & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1-2), 159-183.
38. Ferretti, R. P. & Fan, Y. (2016). Argumentative writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 301–315). The Guilford Press.
39. Ferretti, R. P. & Lewis, W. E. (2013). Best practices in teaching argumentative writing. Best Practices in Writing Instruction, 2, 113-140.
40. Ferretti, R. P. Lewis, W. E. & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577-589.
41. Ferretti, Ralph P. & Graham, Steve (2019). Argumentative writing: Theory, assessment, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 32:1345–1357 doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x
42. Fisher, A. (2013). Critical Thinking: An introduction (second edition). Cambridge University Press Education. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
43. Gleason, M. M. (1999). The role of evidence in argumentative writing, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(1), 81-106, Doi: 10.1080/105735699278305
44. Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 414-424.
45. Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer (s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258-279.
46. Graham, S., Gillespie, A. & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 1-15.
47. Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using Spss for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
48. Günal, H. & Kaya, R. (2016). Problems and drawbacks that hıstory teachers experıence whıle teachıng controversıal and sensıtıve ıssues (Erzurum sample). Turkish History Education Journal, 5(1), 44-73.
49. Hand, M. & Levinson, R. (2012). Discussing controversial issues in the classroom. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(6), 614-629. Doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00732.x
50. Harwood, A. M. & Hahn, C. L. (1990). Controversial issues in the classroom. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.
51. Hedley, M. & Markowitz, L. (2001). Avoiding moral dichotomies: Teaching controversial topics to resistant students. Teaching Sociology, 195-208.
52. Hess, D. (2005). How do teachers’ political views influence teaching about controversial issues. Social Education, 69(1), 47-48.
53. Hess, D. E. (2002). Discussing controversial public issues in secondary social studies classrooms: Learning from skilled teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 30(1), 10-41. Doi:10.1080/009331 04.2002.10473177
54. Jin, T., Su, Y. & Lei, J. (2020). Exploring the blended learning design for argumentative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 23–34. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44720
55. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Smith, K. A. (2000). Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(1), 28-37. Doi: 10.1080/00 091380009602706
56. Kelly, T. E. (1986). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the teacher's role. Theory & Research in Social Education, 14(2), 113-138.
57. Kitson, A. & McCully, A. (2005). 'You hear about it for real in school.'Avoiding, containing and risk-taking in the history classroom. Teaching History, (120), 32-37.
58. Kiuhara, S. A., Gillespie Rouse, A., Dai, T., Witzel, B. S., Morphy, P. & Unker, B. (2020). Constructing written arguments to develop fraction knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 584.
59. Koh, Y. C. (2004). The impact of scaffolding via online asynchronous discussions on students' thinking skills in writing argumentative essays (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
60. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Latifi, S., Noroozi O., Hatami J. &. Biemans, H. J. A (2021). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning?, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(2), 195-206. Doi: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005
62. Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J. & Fardanesh, H. (2019). The effects of collaborative e-learning environment peer feedback and argumentation instruction on educational sciences’ argumentative writing and argumentative feedback quality. JIERA,13(45), 27-44.
63. Liu, F. & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45, 117-128.
64. Lockwood, A. L. (1995). Controversial issues: The teacher's crucial role. Social Education, 60(1), 28-31.
65. MacArthur, C. A. & Graham, S. (2016). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 24–40). The Guilford Press
66. MEB, (2018). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 4.5.6.7. Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretim Programı [4.5.6.7. Social Studies Curriculum.]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
67. Misco, T. (2012). The importance of context for teaching controversial issues in international settings. International Education, 42(1), 69-84.
68. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative- quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120-123.
69. Murtadho, F. (2021). Metacognitive and critical thinking practices in developing EFL Students’ Argumentative writing skills. Indenosian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 656-666. Doi:10.17509/ijal .v10i3.31752,
70. Negari, G. M. (2011). A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners' writing skill. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 299.
71. Nganga, L., Roberts, A., Kambutu, J. & James, J. (2020). Examining pre-service teachers’ preparedness and perceptions about teaching controversial issues in social studies. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(1), 77-90.
72. Nippold, M. A. & Ward-Lonergan, J. M. (2010). Argumentative writing in pre-adolescents: The role of verbal reasoning. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(3), 238–248. Doi:10.1177/0265659009349979
73. Nippold, M. A. Ward-Lonergan, J. M. & Fanning, J. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speach, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(2), 125–138.
74. Olsen, A. W., VanDerHeide, J., Goff, B. & Dunn, M. B. (2018). Examining intertextual connections in written arguments: A study of student writing as social participation and response. Written Communication, 35(1), 58-88. Doi:10.1177%2F0741088317739557
75. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of science education, 26(4), 411-423.
76. Ozturk, D., & Kus, Z. (2019). Social studies teachers' opinions and practices regarding teaching controversial issues. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 44(8), 15-37.
77. Öntaş, T., Yıldırım, E., Egüz, Ş., & Kaya, B. (2021). Reflections of teaching of controversial topics to the field of classroom education. Education and Science, 46(205) 161-189. Doi: 10.15390/EB.2020.9104
78. Öztürk, D. (2017). Social studies teachers’ views and practices on teaching of controversial issues (Unpublished Doctoral Distertation). Kastamonu University, Kastamonu.
79. Pace, J. L. (2021). Hard questions: Learning to teach controversial issues. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
80. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by guide to data analysis using spss for windows (2nd ed.). National Library of Australia.
81. Pei, Z., Zheng, C., Zhang, M. & Liu, F. (2017). Critical thinking and argumentative writing: Inspecting the association among EFL learners in China. English Language Teaching, 10(10), 31-42
82. Philpott, S., Clabough, J., McConkey, L. & Turner, T. N. (2011). Controversial issues: To teach or not to teach? That is the question. The Georgia Social Studies Journal, 1(1), 32-44.
83. Rambosk, P. (2011). Florida pre-service teachers' and their attitudes towards the use of controversial issues (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Florıda State Unıversıty. ABD.
84. Rossi, J. A. (2006). The dialogue of democracy. The Social Studies, 97(3), 112-120. Doi: 10.3200/TSSS .97.3.112-120
85. Salminen, T., Marttunen, M. & Laurinen, L. (2010). Visualising knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 379–391. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729. 2010.00354.x
86. Seçgin, F. (2009). The teacher candidates?,perception, attitude and ideas about teaching the controversial issues (Master Thesis). Gaziosmanpaşa Univesity, Tokat.
87. Setyowati, L., Sukmawa, S. & Latief, M. A. (2017). Solving the students’ problems in writing argumentative essay through the provision of planning. Celt: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature, 17(1), 86- 102. Doi:10.24167/celt.v17i1.1140
88. Soley, M. (1996). If it's controversial, why teach it?. Social Education, 60, 9-14.
89. Stradling, R. (1984). The teaching of controversial issues: an evaluation. Educational review, 36(2), 121-129. Doi: 10.1080/0013191840360202
90. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı (M. Baloğlu, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel.
91. Tatar, Ş. (2019). An investigation of dissertations on controversial and socioscientific ıssues in Turkey from the perspective of educational sciences. Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 20(Special Issue), 1-21. Doi: 10.17494/ogusbd.
92. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
93. Tuncer, H. (2018). Examining social studies teacher candidates' opinions about teaching controversial subjects (Unpublished Master Thesis). Fırat University, Elazığ.
94. Tunç-Şahin, C. (2021). Teaching social issues in social studies education. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 22(3), 1429-1474. Doi: 10.29299/kefad.919950
95. UNESCO (2016). Education in Thailand: An OECD-UNESCO Perspective, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259119-en
96. Uygun, K. & Arslan, I. E. (2020). Students' opinions about teaching of the controversial topics in the social studies classes. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(2), 335-344. Doi: 10.11591 /ijere.v9i2.20446
97. Vorobej, M. (2006). A theory of argument. Cambridge University Press.
98. Yazıcı, S. & Seçgin, F. (2010). A study on teaching controversial issues. Journal of International Social Research, 3(12).
99. Yılmaz, K. (2012). Investigation into controversial issues and taboo topıcs: Social studies teachers’ perspectives, Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 9(18), 201-225.
100. Yücel, A.G. (2018). The effect of controversial issues on the development of social studies teacher candidates’ critical thinking levels (Unpublished Master Thesis). Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Nevşehir.
101. 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.