Literature Responses Part VIII: Evolution of the Toulmin Method

It seems the longer Mrs. Testa and I collaborate, the closer I feel to what is essentially the best way to pre-write/plan for any expository prompt.  In an attempt to really suss out what formula is involved in creating a "Claim," "Warrant," and "Evidence," I began asking if there existed a formula--not necessarily a 1:1 formula--but one where a student could plug his/her imagination and creativity into certain variables.

Ironically, in this way planning for expository prompts can be a very creative experience, but it wasn't until I came up with the following that this "formula" became truly universal:

Claim: "I believe that [this is where you re-state the OEQ using as few pronouns as possible] 

Warrant: "because [this is how the above relates to me] or [what is the function of the above and how does it relate to me?]" 

Evidence: [No pieces of evidence should be stated in your warrant; the pieces should (usually) relate to whatever adjectives are in the warrant] 

(1) (2) (3)"

At first glance, this may seem overly complex, but in fact, it's quite straightforward:

Claim: I think that Veggie Heaven (in Teaneck, NJ) should be nominated for "Local Restaurant of the Year" 

Warrant: because the culinary experience is of the highest vegetarian quality and isn't to be matched in the entire state of New Jersey. 

Evidence: 

1. The fake meat actually tastes like the kind of animal it reads on the menu--"sesame chicken" tastes like sesame chicken and has the same texture as chicken even though it's really soy/seitan 

2. The service, although it can take a little longer to be served, is very friendly and--for vegetarian fare--fairly quick 

3. There are many statues, fountains and music that are both soothing and beautifully presented; this creates a relaxing atmosphere and with its oversized picture windows and the peaceful neighborhood outside, interior melts with exterior for a transcendental experience where good food and good company intersect with nature and art.

Literature Responses Part VII: Uncovering Nuances of the Toulmin Method and of the Debater Role

It seems the more I co-teach and collaborate with Carol the more I'm impelled to be reflexive about what we're been working on in her classes as regards the Debater Role of Literature Responses (or the Toulmin method of argumentation).

In helping students try to understand and find logic and clarity in planning their essays/paragraphs using the Debater Role, it struck me that all the supporting Evidence needs to be aligned with a specific portion of the Warrant, usually the adjectives contained in the warrant.

OEQ: Do you think the government should have enacted the Removal Act that displaced many Shawnees? 

Claim: I believe the U.S. government shouldn't have enacted the Removal Act
Warrant: because the Shawnees were a resourceful people who could have helped the Ohio settlers
Evidence (3): 

1. Shawnees used all parts of an animal when they killed it  

2. Shawnees were peaceful (and proved it when they captured and then released Daniel Boone and his men unharmed and with supplies of food and weapons)

3. Shawnees knew how to survive in harsh conditions and were used to Mid-Western winters. 

In the above example Evidence #2 does not support the Shawnees being a resourceful people; if the original Warrant had been "because the Shawnees were a peaceful and resourceful people who could have helped the Ohio settlers," then #2 can be kept.  As it stands, however, a new idea needs to be proffered that directly supports the notion of the Shawnees being a resourceful people.

Another issue that's actually more of a reminder is that when creating their Claims, students should re-state the original open-ended question as can be seen in the Claim above.  Last, Carol and I have been having quite a time in steering students away from excessive pronoun use where the original OEQ is concerned as these can really muddy comprehension for readers...or for that matter, scorers.

Literature Responses Part VI: The Debater Role & Satisfying the NJASK

While collaborating and co-teaching with Carol, she and I came up with an interesting twist to the Debater Role, which is really just a stripped-down version of the Toulmin method of argumentation.  As it stands, the Debater Role is the Following:

Claim: I believe _________________________
Warrant: because _________________________
Evidence (3):
1. _____________
2. _____________
3. _____________

The small evolution of this could be:

Claim: I believe _________________________
Warrant: because _________________________
Evidence (3):
1. Text to self
2. Text to text
3. Text to world

In this way, evidence is still being proffered by the student, but s/he is also making those important connections that the scorers at the state are looking for when they're reviewing students' responses to writing prompts.

Literature Responses Part IV: The Debater Role (Streamlining Toulmin)

As I referred to in a previous post, the Debater Role (in Literature Responses) is a more stripped down version of the Toulmin method of argumentation, a great way to get students to write and think more clearly and more critically.  It can be used to brainstorm and pre-write, and is very effective for creating air-tight (logically) blog posts.

The simplest break-down of it is:

Claim: I think ____________ = What's being proposed in response to an open-ended question
Warrant: because_______________ = Finishes the sentence and starts with "because"
Evidence: (3): ________________ = The 3-5 pieces of supporting evidence form the text

For example...

"Do you think it's hazardous for an 11-year-old boy to make such a journey on his own...?"

Claim: Nathan really has to make this journey on his own or his family will have nothing to return to if/when his father heals
Warrant: After all, if he doesn't do it, no one else will...
Evidence (3):

1. He is young, but in those days young people took on all kinds of responsibilities people nowadays would consider "hazardous"
2. Ezra can't (and shouldn't) be expected to help Nathan because they just met and Ezra has to protect Molly from Weasel and help Pa convalesce
3. It would be more hazardous for the Fowlers to return to a non-existent farm--one that has been robbed of its animals, or the animals having died from exposure and negligence--than for Nathan to make this journey

Some great links for finding out more about the Toulmin method of argumentation:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm

http://www.mesacc.edu/~rrodrigo/lessons/arrangement/juicy_fruit_warrants.htm

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/03/

http://www.slideshare.net/soul4real/toulmin-model-of-argumentation-presentation

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/toulmin2.htm

Confluence of Rule of Blog and Debater Role (from Literature Responses)

The tack that I've chosen to pursue this year in everyone's classes is the following (in this order):

1. Question Types (with an especial emphasis on Open-Ended Questions)
2. Engaging students in blogging in-class using the Rule of Blog
3. Explicitly teaching them the Toulmin method of argumentation that I've streamlined into the Debater Role from my Literature Responses
4. Incorporating the Debater Role into brainstorming and pre-writing for persuasive essays

This doesn't include workshops for reading strategies, Guided Reading, Literature Circles, Literature Responses, and specific concerns for the students in your classes, but it is, after much deliberation on my part, a PD paradigm that will allow everyone to start addressing AMS's new SMART goal.

I can't overstate how important it is that everyone take a lock-step approach to the four strategies/activities that I have listed here.  Briefly stated, if students haven't mastered OEQ (Open-Ended Questions) then they won't have anything of substance to respond to for the Rule of Blog activity; if they haven't responded to teacher- or student-generated OEQ on the Rule of Blog activity then the Debate Role (Toulmin method of argumentation) will just seem pointless to them and, most likely, you; and if students haven't mastered the Debater Role, then their persuasive essays aren't going to be nearly as effective as they'll need to be come Spring of 2012.

For now, I wanted to proffer some student exemplars--fairly decent for first tries--of the Rule of Blog, one of which had an impromptu OEQ based on responses to previous student-generated OEQ, the second of which had been prepared ahead of time...