In this study, I present a qualitative analysis of 11 writing portfolios drawn from a yearlong instructional program designed to apprentice students into the practices of argumentative writing typical of early-college coursework in the United States. The students’ formal and informal writings were parsed into utterances and coded along two developmental dimensions: reciprocity, or the extent to which each utterance answered to the immediate context in which it was generated; and indexicality, or the extent to which each utterance evidenced modes of reasoning that reflect the conventions of academic argumentation. My analysis found that although students’ writing evidenced a high degree of reciprocity, they frequently employed nonacademic modes of reasoning. Focusing on a subset of utterances, I show how their tacit orientations toward the concepts of fact and opinion limited the extent to which their reasoning satisfied the evidentiary expectations of formal academic discourse. This discovery suggests that students’ development as writers of academic arguments is closely linked to their formal instruction in argumentative writing as well as to their tacit understandings of concepts fundamental to argumentation. Moreover, these findings highlight important distinctions between formal and informal reasoning and how those distinctions may be implicated in both curriculum and instruction.

中文翻译：

---

“没有事实等于没有说服力”：事实和意见是高中学生书面论证中的概念工具

在这项研究中，我对从为期一年的教学计划中抽取的11种写作作品进行了定性分析，该课程旨在让学生学习美国早期大学课程中典型的论证写作实践。将学生的正式和非正式作品分解为语音，并按照两个发展维度进行编码：互惠，或每种语音对所产生的直接语境的回应程度；和索引性，或每种话语在多大程度上证明了反映学术论证惯例的推理模式。我的分析发现，尽管学生的写作表现出高度的互惠性，但他们经常采用非学术性的推理方式。专注于话语的子集，我展示了他们对事实和见解概念的默契定向如何限制了他们的推理满足正式学术话语的证据期望的程度。这一发现表明，学生作为学术论证作家的发展与其在论证写作中的正式指导以及对论证基础的默契理解密切相关。此外，这些发现突出了正式推理和非正式推理之间的重要区别，以及这些区别如何在课程和教学中产生影响。这一发现表明，学生作为学术论证作家的发展与其在论证写作中的正式指导以及对论证基础的默契理解密切相关。而且，这些发现突出了正式和非正式推理之间的重要区别，以及在课程和教学中如何暗示这些区别。这一发现表明，学生作为学术论证作家的发展与其在论证写作中的正式指导以及对论证基础的默契理解密切相关。而且，这些发现突出了正式和非正式推理之间的重要区别，以及在课程和教学中如何暗示这些区别。