I found the selections about Rogerian argument really interesting. This actually addresses one of my main concerns with argument--that no one really listens to the other side or admits that the other side is worth listening to. One of the things that annoyed me most about being an opinion columnist is that all too frequently my fellow-columnists would 'support' their arguments by saying, in effect, "Those who disagree are stupid/immoral." Generally, however, the other side is not stupid/immoral. There are two sides to most arguments because it is usually possible to be both intelligent and moral and on either side. I'm actually considering rewriting my second assignment (which I didn't ever like to begin with) to require my students to use Rogerian argument and try to see the other side of an issue about which they feel strongly.
This is the draft of my revised assignment:
From the texts we have discussed in class, choose a text that advocates a position that you oppose (this text may be fiction, nonfiction, or poetry). Using this text, utilize Rogerian argument to clearly state the author’s position as well as your own position. Your audience is the author and those who agree with him/her. In this essay, you are trying to create understanding between yourself and the author of the text; in order to change his/her position, you must show your understanding of and respect for this position, in addition to making your own case.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Leta,
I think this is an interesting new spin on the "write the opposite of your opinion" paper. What you've added allows the students to maintain and support their own opinions while still demonstrating a knowledge of the "other" opinion. I also like that you used the word "respect." Even though the "opposite opinion" assignment stressed that the opinion should be taken seriously, I really did not see that in tutoring sessions!
One challenge I would make: does this "opposite" business encourage binary thinking? How could you lead the students to understand these issues are not necessarily about "opposites"? Could the complexities and binary-blurs lead to a stronger or more convincing argument that does not have the tendency to resort back to "good/bad"?
Katie,
I've wondered about this, too. I certainly don't want to encourage my students to think in polarities, and rather fear my assignment for precisely that reason. However, as Claire pointed out when we were talking about this specific issue, taking an opposing view (or, in Leta's case, showing a respect for an opposing view) does not mean advocating the strict opposite. I have not fine tuned what precisely would count as "opposite enough" yet, but think that any step in another direction is progress.
I've been thinking about having a second flip for the final draft. In other words, it would look like this: 1st assignment is an informal paper responding to a statement (marijuana should/should not be legal). 2nd assignment is formal paper submission 1, asking them to argue an opposing position with research. 3rd assignment would be a revision of the paper asking them to argue for his/her new position after having done all the research.
The problem I'm concerned about with this is that it does not give them sufficient space to work on revising the first paper as it stands. They will have received my comments, but will not necessarily be able to do much with them.
Maybe just an informal reflection paper after the second submission would allow them to explore how their thinking has changed since writing the paper. I don't know.
The point, in response to both Leta and Katie, however, is that I want my students to engage views that are different from their own and to dabble in work that might be outside of their comfort zones, since I think that will help them to grow and progress as critical thinkers, and subsequently as writers.
--Bri
I agree that we should be careful not to encourage our students to simply take a black-and-white approach to taking a stance. However, as the saying goes, there are two sides to every argument, so it's diffcult not to fall into binary thinking. I suppose that encouraging them to think of what the person "in the middle" would say might help, so they consider three different perspectives. However, I also think Rogerian argument has more to do with persuasive style than binary thinking. Rogerian argument is all-inclusive, suggesting that you are open-minded and considerate of all viewpoints in regard to the topic. Setting yourself up as this kind of thinker helps, as suggested before, to show "respect" to other thinkers and encourages them to be open-minded as well. It's all about the fine art of persuasion.
Post a Comment