I'll weigh in on Toulmin, albeit almost belatedly. I don't want to just repeat things that have already been nicely by others, so I'll try to keep this from redundancy.
I appreciate what Leta and Jenn brought up--yes, Toulmin is really sensible, but is it too full of jargon for English 1K students? I think it's not an ideal primary text for beginning composition students. I'm not sure if I'd rather teach Aristotle than Toulmin, as Jenn said, but I think that I'd rather act as a filter for both of these scholars. I think rather than just handing this material to the students (either as homework reading or lecture notes), I'd rather take the basics from Aristotle and Toulmin, and try to give the students the concepts without the elevated words. If that makes sense.
Toulmin's diagrams were cool. Sometimes I have a hard time grasping visualized, abstract information, but I do like it when he gives actual examples in the diagrams. Words and pictures work better for me, and I think I'd like to offer my students as many ways to absorb material as I can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think rather than just handing this material to the students (either as homework reading or lecture notes), I'd rather take the basics from Aristotle and Toulmin, and try to give the students the concepts without the elevated words.
I couldn't agree more. I think it's quite possible to do valuable work in logic without introducing a whole slough of arcane terminology. It can even be fun. There are several good online resources available that allow (if you have a "smart classroom") to easily incorporate the visual as a supplement. I often tend to think spacially when working logic problems, so I find that visual aids can often be of great use -- as well as being more interesting than skeletal abstractions.
Post a Comment