Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 12:2 (2023) ► pp.135–158

Comparison of oral and written argumentation by Ultra-Orthodox Jewish students

ORCID logo | Stanford University,
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.
Keywords: argumentation, Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews, oral argumentation, written assignments, persuasive essays, structured interview
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Oral and written argumentation
    • The yeshiva and argumentation
    • Objective
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Data collection
    • Data analysis
  • Findings
    • Similar patterns in written assignments and oral interviews
      • Simple and complex position
      • Weighing and position location
      • Dealing with principles and definitions
      • Epistemic boosters
    • Reflection about the relations between written and oral argumentation
  • Discussion
    • Limitations
    • Implications
  • References
Published online: 15 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse
References (52)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asterhan, C. S. (2018). Exploring enablers and inhibitors of productive peer argumentation: The role of individual achievement goals and of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54 1, 66–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51 (2), 164–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 76–88). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. (2017). The Haredim: A guide to their beliefs and sectors. Tel Aviv: Am Oved [Hebrew].Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D. R. Olson, A. Hildyard, & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy, Language, and Learning (pp. 105–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I.-H., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43 (4), 400–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Argumentation in science education research: Perspectives from Europe. In Science Education Research and Practice in Europe (pp. 253–289). Brill Sense. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32 (2–3), 135–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1991). The Haredi (ultra-orthodox) society: Sources, trends and processes. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iordanou, K., & Kuhn, D. (2020). Contemplating the opposition: Does a personal touch matter? Discourse Processes, 57 (4), 343–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice, 1 (1), 66–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malach, G., & Cahaner, L. (2016). The Yearbook of Ultra-Orthodox Society in Israel 2018. The Israel Democracy Institute, 135–170.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76 (1), 59–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poole, D. (2003). Linguistic connections between co-occurring speech and writing in a classroom literacy event. Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 103–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2 1, 142–175.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B. B. (2011). Hevruta’learning in Lithuanian Yeshivas: Recurrent learning of Talmudic issues. Education and Religion: Authority and Autonomy, 279–308.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 22 1, 100315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. [URL]
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsemach, E., & Zohar, A. (2020). From Yeshiva to Academia: The Argumentative Writing Characteristics of Ultra-Orthodox Male Students. Argumentation, 1–25.Google Scholar
(2021). The intersection of gender and culture in argumentative writing. International Journal of Science Education, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 72 1.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. (2008). Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Tsemach, Ehud
2023. ‘The whole point of faith is not to know’: Jewish ultra-Orthodox students’ epistemological beliefs about science and religion. Journal of Beliefs & Values ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.