Hookimaw-Witt, J. (1998). Any changes since residential school? Canadian Journal of Native Education. 22, 2, 159-170.
(2)Ladson-Billings, G. (2007). Pushing past the achievement gap: an essay on the language of deficit. The Journal of Negro Education. 76, 3, 316-323.
(3)choose one of the follow (because I cannot find the article online):
Lopez N. (2002). Rewriting race and gender high school lessons: Second-generation Dominicans in New York City. Teachers College Record, 104, 6, 1187-1203.
Meyer, E. J. (2008). A Feminist reframing of bullying and harassment: transforming schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43, 1, 33-48.
An annotated bibliographic entry distills the most important and relevant information from a single reading. It describes the primary argument of the author(s) as well as the evidence provided that can lead to their conclusions. It also provides space for a short critique. Finally, you are also required to think about theory and how the theoretical tools employed by the author further and compliment her/his argument. In all, it must contain:
1. The bibliographic entry.
2. What you believe the text’s main argument is.
3. How the author(s) support the argument.
4. A short critique of the text.
5. What framework or theory is employed by the author to further her/his point (not included in example below but explained in class).
Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as an argument. Science Education(94), 810-824.
Deanna Kuhn (2010) proposes an “argumentation curriculum” that exposes students to different aspects of making aclaim. Kuhn, quoting Bricker and Bell (2009) states that “the goal of science must not be not only mastery of scientific concepts but also learning how to engage in scientific discourse” (p. 810), as such, to Kuhn “the goal is to communicate and most of all to persuade.” (p. 811). Arguing however is understood as a conflictual rather than a collective learning experience where the object is “to secure commitments from the opponent that can be used to support one’s argument. The second is to undermine the opponent’s position by identifying and challenging weaknesses in the opponent’s argument (p. 813). As such, the learning experience is not a give and take where the desired outcome is collective conclusions that further our understanding of a particular phenomenon; instead it is understood as an individualistic process where the object is to win a debate. The author goes on to discuss the role of evidence in this endeavor as a necessary facet of the scientific process whereby it can strengthen ones argument as well as weaken the counter argument. However, the author does not speak about the need to read all information surrounding a topic rather than only focusing on that which furthers one’s argument. This process would then make it difficult for a student to change opinions or adjust their understanding since the objective is to win the argument and the shifting of positions can be constructed as an undermining of one’s initial argument. This article centers a specific understanding of delivering a science curriculum. In all, this article is useful to my paper because I believe that while learning how to effectively argue is a valuable tool, in such a combative context it can be counterproductive as each conversation is understood as a duel where one must discredit the other until victory is proclaimed.