On Argumentation
September 7, 2024
The relevance of developing argumentation skills has a long history in modern composition pedagogy with a consensus that composition students should develop such skills but some disagreement through the decades on how to teach those skills. When these are combined with the natural theoretical shifts in what argumentation means, we find a complicated and sometimes confusing teaching and learning situation. Though some shifts in argumentation theory have occurred periodically, the pedagogical concerns certainly have not been resolved.
Henry (1928), in an essay in The English Journal, extolled the importance of the argumentative essay: “Students are urged to write the argumentative essay first for purely practical reasons. From the argumentative essays the instructor can judge early in the course which students have keen and logical minds” (p. 142). Indeed, in his listing of long paper assignments (average length, 2,000 words) for the 1926–27 school year, the first assignment was an argumentative essay in which students were to choose “some current, controversial question” (p. 142). Eighty years later, many instructors of writing might cringe at the value-judgment of whether or not “students have keen and logical minds,” yet the focus on teaching written argumentation remains strong.
In a follow-up article ten years later, Reedy (1938) ranked elements of composition based on their usefulness. The highest value, Rank 5, or those elements which were deemed “indispensable” to the success of a composition, listed 64 elements, all related to grammar, punctuation, syntax, and mechanics. Rhetorical style was nowhere on the list of “indispensable” elements. The first ten elements in Rank 4, or “very useful,” all related to mechanics. Only then did rhetorical styles appear. Eleventh was “use of definite techniques for writing expository compositions,” twelfth was “knowledge of the principles of narration,” and thirteenth was “knowledge of the principles of argumentation” [italics added] (p. 130). Nevertheless, Reedy’s placement of the principles of argumentation as third of all rhetorical styles and in the “very useful” column denoted its importance to the composition curriculum.
In 1966 during a session at the 17th Annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, participants concurred on the importance of teaching argumentation in first year composition classes for accurate reasoning, further adding that teaching argumentation helps students develop “the ability to see and develop the world around [them]” (“Argumentative Papers,” p. 191).
Fennell (1980), in response to L. Behrens’s 1980 article in College English about the types of writing students do in undergraduate courses, conducted an informal survey of the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences (with English Department faculty not participating) and the School of Business at a mid-sized, urban university. The number of faculty was not reported; however, with a 43% response rate, Fennell found that while the majority of assignments were expository, 17% were argumentative. Sitler (1993) conducted an informal survey of instructors in every academic department at her university about what they expect of first-year students’ writing. “Nearly all” (p. 23) instructors ranked the analytical, argumentative paper as the most frequent type of writing expected.
“Argumentative papers.” (1966, Oct.) College Composition and Communication, 17(3), 190–191.
Fennell, F. L. (1980). Further comment on the service course. College English, 42, 191–193.
Henry, R. L. (1928). A college course in advanced composition. The English Journal, 17, 137–146.
Reedy, S. J. (1938). What composition is functional? The English Journal, 27, 127–132.
Sitler, H. C. (1993). What college writing instructors expect and why you should join the resistance. The English Journal, 82, 21–25.
