When win-argument pedagogy is a loss for the composition classroom

• Authors: Lee Grosskopf Wendy
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Despite the effort educators put into developing in students the critical writing and thinking skills needed to compose effective arguments, undergraduate college students are often accused of churning out essays lacking in creative and critical thought, arguments too obviously formulated and with sides too sharply drawn. Theories abound as to why these deficiencies are rampant. Some blame students’ immature cognitive and emotional development for these lacks. Others put the blame of lackadaisical output on the assigning of shopworn writing subjects, assigned topics such as on American laws and attitudes about capital punishment and abortion. Although these factors might contribute to faulty written output in some cases, the prevailing hindrance is our very pedagogy, a system in which students are rewarded for composing the very type of argument we wish to avoid — the eristic, in which the goal is not truth seeking, but successfully disputing another’s argument. Certainly the eristic argument is the intended solution in cases when a clear‑cut outcome is needed, such as in legal battles and political campaigns when there can only be one winner. However, teaching mainly or exclusively the eristic, as is done in most composition classrooms today, halts the advancement of these higher‑order inquiry skills we try developing in our students.

Keywords

EN

tagmemics; composition; win‑rhetoric; dissoi logoi; pedagogy; argumentation

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii
• Journal: ARGUMENT: Biannual Philosophical Journal
• Year: 2015
• Volume: Tom: 5
• Issue: Numer: 1
• Pages: 243-266

Dates

published

2015

Contributors

author

Lee Grosskopf Wendy

• University of Rhode Island, Kingston, USA

References

• Alford, B. (2002). Freirean voices, student choices. Pedagogy, 2(1), 115–118.
• Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Barnard, I. (2014). Upsetting composition commonplaces. Colorado: University Press of Colorado.
• Bate, W. J. (1987). John Keats. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Beard, K. W. (2008). Toulmin’s rhetorical logic: what’s the warrant for warrants?. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 41 (1), 22–25.
• Belenky, M. F. et al. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
• Bizzell, P. (1984). William Perry and liberal education. College English, 46(5), 447–454.
• Bizzell, P. (2009). Opinion: composition studies saves the world!. College English, 72(2), 174–187.
• Booth, W. C. (2004). The rhetoric of RHETORIC: The quest for effective communication. Oxford: Wiley‑Blackwell Publishing.
• Bryant, L. R., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (Eds.). (2011). Towards a speculative philosophy. In: The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism (= Anamnesis). Melbourne: a re.press. Retrived from: http://re‑press.org/ (30.05.2015).
• Burnham, R. C. (1986). The Perry Scheme and the teaching of writing. Rhetoric Review, 4(2),152–158.
• Danisch, R. (2012). Stanley Fish is not a Sophist: The difference between skeptical and prudential versions of rhetorical pragmatism. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42(5), 405–423.
• Ervin, E. (2003). Public literacy. (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
• Ethics. Dictionary.com. Retrieved from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics?s=t (16.05.2015).
• Flowerday, T. & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 207–215.
• Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01700692 (20.05.2015).
• Gorzelsky, G. (2013). Experiential knowledge: How literacy practices seek to mediate personal and systemic change. College English, 75(4), 398–419.
• Jarratt, S. C. (1991). Rereading the Sophists. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Johnson, J. D. (2012). A rainforest in front of a bulldozer: The literacy practices of teacher candidates committed to social justice. English Education, 44(2), 147–179.
• Keats, J. (1901). The complete works of John Keats. (H. Buxton Forman, Ed.) (vol. 5: Letters, 1819–1820). New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.
• Keith, W. M. & Beard, D. E. (Eds.) (2008).Toulmin’s rhetorical logic: What’s the warrant for warrants?. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(1), 22–50.
• Kerferd, G. B. (1981). The Sophistic movement. (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• King, P. M. (2009). Principles of development and developmental change underlying theories of cognitive and moral development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 597–620.
• Kohlberg, L. & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive­‑developmental approach. Theory into Practice, 16(2), 53–59.
• Kroll, B. (2005). Arguing differently. Pedagogy, 5(1), 37–60.
• Lunsford, A. A., Ruszkiewics, J. J., & Walters, K. (2010). Everything’s an argument. (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
• Lynch, W. M. (1996). Discovering the ripening functions of argument: Using concepts from the new rhetoric for analysis and response to student argumentation. In: D. P. Berrill (Ed.). Perspectives on written argument (pp. 35–55). New York: Hampton Press.
• Miles, L. (2011). WRT524: History and theory of writing instruction class lecture, University of Rhode Island. Retrieved from: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/eng/Graduate/GradCurriculum.html (20.05.2015).
• Monsma, B. J. (2001). Writing home: Composition, campus ecology, and webbed environments. In: S. I. Dobrin & Ch. R. Weisser (Eds.). Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 281–289). Albany: State University of New York.
• Nilson, Th. R. (1958). Free speech, persuasion, and the democratic process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 44(3), 235–243.
• O’Reilly, S. (2011). [Review of ‘The structure of thinking by Laura Weed’]. Philosophy Now, 87(6). Retrieved from: https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/The_Structure_of_Thinking_by_Laura_Weed (30.05.2015).
• Owens, D. (1998). Composition and sustainability: Teaching for a threatened generation. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
• Peirce, Ch. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1–15. Retrieved from: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fixation_of_Belief (30.05.2015).
• Penrose, R. (1996). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness. New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Perelman, Ch. & Olbrechts‑Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. (Trans. J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.
• Perry, W. G. Jr. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Cambridge: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Phillips, H. & Bostian P. (2012). The purposeful argument: A practical guide. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
• Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In: P. H. Mussen (Ed.). Carmichael’s handbook of child psychology. New York: Wiley.
• Polsky, A. D. (2003). Argument, evidence, and engagement. Pedagogy, 3(3), 427–439.
• Rancer, A. S. & Avtgis, Th. A. (1995). Argumentative and aggressive communication: theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo L.‑J. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.
• Roach, K. D. (1995). Teaching assistant argumentativeness: Effects on affective learning and students’ perceptions of power use. Communication Education, 44(1), 15–29.
• Rousseau, J.‑J. (1754). Discourse on inequality. Amsterdam: Marc‑Michel Rey.
• Salibrici, M. M. & Salter, R. C. (2004). The transitional space of student writing: A resource for teaching critical insight and concern. Pedagogy, 4(2), 215–240.
• Schapiro, B. (2009). Negotiating a third space in the classroom. Pedagogy, 9(3), 423–439.
• Stealing. Dictionary.com. Retrieved from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stealing?s=t (26.05.2015).
• Sumner, D. Th. (2001). Don’t forget to argue: Problems, possibilities, and ecocomposition. In: R. Christian Weisser & S. I. Dobrin (Eds.). Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 265–280). Albany: State University of New York.
• Takayoshi, P. (2000). Complicated women: Examining methodologies for understanding the uses of technology. Computers and Composition, 17(2), 123–138.
• Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York: Ballentine Publishing Group.
• Toulmin, S. E. (2004). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Weed, L. E. (2003). The structure of thinking: A process‑oriented account of mind. Exeter: Imprint Academic Press.
• Weisser, Ch. R. (2002). Moving beyond academic discourse: Composition studies and the public sphere. Illinois: Southern Illinois Press.
• Weisser, Ch. R. & Dobrin, S. (Eds.). (2001). Ecocomposition: Theoretical and pedagogical approaches. Albany: State University of New York.
• Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Tavistock.
• Yagelski, R. P. & Miller, R. K. (2011). The informed argument. Belmont, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
• Young, R. E., Becker A. L., & Pike, K. L. (1970). Rhetoric: Discovery and change. Chicago: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich