Roger, Roger, Roger.

I liked many facets of the Rogerian argument, most notably the writer’s/speaker’s attempt to remove the sense of threat by attempting to demonstrate similarities between two parties. I felt encouraged by an approach that emphasized empathy and understanding, qualities I feel are lacking in many areas of life, not just student writing. Not only would a Rogerian assignment promote detailed and thorough analysis, I would hope that this willingness to consider both sides of an issue might carry over to other fields. This is why I might consider using the Rogerian model for a paper assignment that asked students to address both sides of a contemporary political issue.

However, I was a bit skeptical of certain aspects of the Rogerian Argument in regards to student writing, specifically for English 1000. Teaching students to write sensitively as possible about an opposing viewpoint seems like a difficult task. How can you teach a student not to judge the reader’s position? In the Writing Lab this semester, I’ve seen several students that were decidedly judgmental and very stubborn (especially when it comes to papers that address a politically-charged issue). I met resistance and even disgust when I asked these students to consider the validity of the opposing point of view, if only for argument’s sake. While a student with such entrenched views can often turn out a very well argued traditional paper, an essay following the Rogerian model might prove incredibly problematic.