Herb & Geoff,
I think that one of the advantages of the They Say/I Say text is that it opens
an opportunity to have students investigate issues before they take a position.
Of course, all that depends upon how we actually use the text in the classroom.
I like your idea of having the students explain the history of an argument or
issue and not express an opinion. Craig's mantra (on another recent e-mail) is
profoundly logical. However, it seems to me that eventually, they need to
examine the arguments & histories of issues and think about/examine where they
stand. Hopefully, they will think before they leap.
Question for those of you who use the text: Do you use the basic text only or
the text that includes readings on various issues?
Paul D.
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable
fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
________________________________
From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, August 8, 2011 4:57:24 PM
Subject: Re: Holding their interest
Herb -
Your comments are not at all tangential. They get straight to the heart of what
I consider to be an essential debate about the role of argument in the freshman
comp (or any comp) classroom - the "great arguments" - abortion, evolution, gay
marriage, gun control, wars in every age and era (but particularly Iraq,
Afghanistan and Vietnam along with Palistine and the entire Middle
East), torture - all of these and more are indeed, what evoke (and
provoke!) student interest. But they are also what cause chaos in the classroom
(or, as you mention, the dinner table).
The only way I've been able to deal with this problem - allowing students full
participation in debating these issues (in the context of their writing
assignments and class discussion) while keeping the lid on the chaos - is to
follow the path that Stanley Fish lays out in his excellent book "Save the World
on Your Own Time." His injunction is quite simple - nobody, including the
teacher, can take a personal position. The pedagogy is designed to show students
how people argue and why the arguments are effective, not taking a position and
defending it.
In practical terms, the phrase I've found that pays is one that I picked up from
Ralph Cintron, a remarkable rhetorician at UIC - "What must be in place for . .
. ?" So applied to the issue of evolution, the question becomes "What must be in
place for someone to reject evolution?" Put this way, I think that putting the
people who reject evolution as simple-minded Bible-thumpers or emotionally
dependent children is a bit too severe as this devolves into ad hominem
reasoning.
Geoff Layton
________________________________
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 16:37:09 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Holding their interest
To: [log in to unmask]
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/
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/