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

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.