"In a case like this, a position on evolution or creation or abortion is not an intellectual stance; it’s a matter of cultural and social identity, and that makes it very hard to think critically about it. I’ve found in UG classes where we deal with dialectology the notion “social class” sometimes gets rejected out of hand as Marxist, and no amount of discussion will shake that position. This is also one of those defining stances.
Is a writing class the place to get students to question such elements of their identity and look at themselves more critically? How does one go about this?"
I agree Herb, from my past experience teaching COMP 101, which featured an argument paper, that it is difficult for students to reason intellectually when they are emotionally charged from controversial topics such as religion or gay marriage. I think for them to engage in a more civil discourse, and one stemming from reason and analysis rather than emotion, the point of departure needs to be different. I particularly liked what Geoff said about “commonplaces” and I thought of introducing more innocuous topics for the freshman to write about such as their experiences in the dining hall or bookstore; “first day” experiences, and so forth. Since I have returned to the same community college after two years of absence, the “argument” paper has now changed to a mini-research paper. I’ll be teaching (2) basic writing classes which consist of basic grammar instruction and sentence and paragraph writing, and then one section of COMP 101. There
is so much I can do during class time; the question for me now as I write my syllabi is what!
Carol Morrison
--- On Mon, 8/8/11, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Holding their interest
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, August 8, 2011, 4:37 PM
Thanks to all of you for one of the most interesting and thoughtfully argued threads we’ve had in a while.
I have a question that may be tangential to this topic, or at least a narrower focus. I should say first that while I have taught both ESL writing and Freshman writing, I am not a writing teacher, and threads like this always leave me with a lot of respect for those who perform these tasks and perform them well.
When I’ve taught writing, I’ve often been encouraged to avoid topics like abortion and creationism vs. evolution because it’s so difficult for student writers to separate themselves from the issues and from the social consequences of taking a position. As an example of this, I had dinner with my oldest son last night, and we got to talking about a good friend of his at work. She is well educated, well read, and has thoughtful views on a lot of topics. Evolution came up recently in one of their conversations, and her response was, “Oh, I don’t believe in evolution. The evidence for it is not very strong.” My son was surprised at her reaction. She comes from a Southern Baptist background but is no longer connected to that or any other denomination, so her reasons for rejecting evolution, and she confirms this, are not religious. I suggested to him that perhaps the reason for her position was a matter of social identity. Her
family and the community she grew up in are devout and accept the biblical creation story literally. Rejecting evolution is a matter of family identity. She can become a backslid Baptist, and that’s lamentable, but for her to accept evolution would be to reject her family.
In a case like this, a position on evolution or creation or abortion is not an intellectual stance; it’s a matter of cultural and social identity, and that makes it very hard to think critically about it. I’ve found in UG classes where we deal with dialectology the notion “social class” sometimes gets rejected out of hand as Marxist, and no amount of discussion will shake that position. This is also one of those defining stances.
Is a writing class the place to get students to question such elements of their identity and look at themselves more critically? How does one go about this?
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Layton
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Holding their interest
Seth -
Thanks for the reference. This thread fits with a project on academic discourse that I'm trying to develop. Perhaps one characteristic that Graff proposes that might be different from the Rogerian model is his insistence that - after all the listening and understanding - writers/academics must finally take a position that differs from that of their interlocutors/respondents. For example, in his book "Clueless in Academe," he offers significant criticism of Deborah Tannen and the views she expresses in her book, "The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue." As he puts it, "Perhaps the most telling refutation of Tannen's thesis is the confrontational quality of the book itself. . . Tannen enacts the behavior she objects to" (89). Similarly in "They Say," Graff advances a method that will enhance the ability of students to argue, not diminish it. His "listening and understanding" component, as I understand it, is presented not as a way
to be non-confrontational but rather as a means to make sure that the resulting argument is telling and effective, much the same way that he demonstrates his understanding of Tannen's position in order to methodically destroy it.
To return to the theme of the thread - "Holding their interest" - perhaps this discussion will help hold student interest by showing them that in order to develop a powerful argument for their position, they must first thoroughly understand the point of view of the person with whom they disagree - and, more interestingly, in order to have something interesting to say, they must find an area where they do disagree.
Geoff Layton
> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 11:41:33 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Holding their interest
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Geoff--
>
> What you describe here sounds a lot like a Rogerian argument, in which the author (A) first explains the position he or she is opposed to (B), without criticism of any sort; the author (A) simply shows that they understand position (B). Then the author (A) offers non-pejorative critique of position (B): 'I see a problem/weakness/issue in position (B) that you (person who holds position [B]) have not addressed.' Then the author (A) offers elements of their own position on the issue that (A) thinks will help strengthen the opposing position (B). Based on the work of psychologist Carl Rogers, this type of argument is a mainstay of mediation: it shows that you are actually listening to the 'other,' treating their point of view as valid and thoughtful; and it presents your own argument not as antagonistic, but as potentially useful in helping the opposition achieve a more effective result (and one that both sides can possible agree to as a fair compromise).
The only argumentative writing textbook I know of that has a whole Rogerian assignment is Nancy Wood's Essentials of Argument.
>
> I have a copy of They Say/I Say on my shelf--now I'll have to look at it! Thanks!
>
> Seth
>
> Dr. Seth Katz
> Assistant Professor
> Department of English
> Bradley University
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Geoffrey Layton
> Sent: Sun 8/7/2011 10:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Holding their interest
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I think the most valuable part of the T/I Say is the "They say" portion because students must be able to identify what they're responding to - and why. In other words, they have to ask (and answer) the question what is it about the text that makes it interesting. I've had a lot of luck teaching "commonplaces" in the context of the following template, "Most (many, the author, my parents, etc) seem to think X (the "commonplace"), but a closer look reveals Y. It's important to recognize that Y is (just as important, preferable, superior to, different from, etc) X because . . ."
>
> Geoff Layton
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 16:46:38 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Holding To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
