After reading the two selections about Stasis Theory, I think students would be able to relate to it more than Aristotle or Toulmin. The idea of the questions and categories seems much simpler than trying to explain syllogisms and warrants. Plus, the example in the Fahnestock and Secor chapter of how magazine articles are set up using stasis questions makes the idea sound more contemporary and approachable.
However, the biggest eye-opener for me was in the second reading by Fulkerson. I agree that the ideas of induction and deduction are extremely confusing to instructors, let alone students. I think, though, the most enlightening point is that we use the wrong tools to teach students how to write arguments. The tools we use are meant for analysis. I really want to explore stasis theory more so I can incorporate the questioning techniques to help students develop a supportable, arguable thesis. Right now I don't have an exact idea about how to incorporate stasis theory other than teaching students to address those types of questions in order to explore topics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Rebecca,
If I'm reading your post correctly, you are saying we (writing teachers) are currently teaching students how to analyze rather than how to write.
Although I agree that we use the wrong tools to teach students writing, I think analysis is a crucial step in learning how to write. A student should know what s/he thinks about a reading, or should know how to engage with lab results, a politician's public address, or any other "text."
If the student does not know how to analyze the world in general, how will s/he know how or what to argue?
Post a Comment