A Three-Part Module on Argument and Persuasion
1. Many course websites for first-year composition include lists of sites that provide shortcuts for students writing researched arguments. One such list is the list of helpful URLs I give students in my argument course (http://academic.pg.cc.md.us/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/110urls.html). These may be links to websites carefully chosen to represent opposing sides of common topics for argument papers, or links to other papers that students can consult as guidance. They save students a lot of time and frustration using Yahoo or Google by guiding them to useful web sites where they are sure to find good sources. Students can’t complain that they couldn’t find good material. The question is, do such "handy" lists of URLs prevent students from gaining important expertise in conducting web research by making it too easy to find materials? How easy should instructors make it for students to find materials for their researched argument? A colleague of mine complains that our college library’s stock of anthologies of pro/con arguments assembled on one issue prevents the student from having to learn how to use the library’s databases. Once students discover the existence of the pro/con anthologies in the first ten seconds of searching the online card catalogue, they have no need to search any further in the other databases. Do instructors have the same concern about Internet searches: Should teachers provide shortcut URLs that take the student directly to a couple of websites that have all the material they may need? (The website at Glendale Community College, for example, has sample thesis statements for EGL 101 papers and a list of specific URLs for that thesis.) Should students learn from the experience of conducting full web searches on their topic; struggling on their own, guided only by the directions provided in their textbook and in class? Conducting web searches is a transferable skill to other disciplines; if we make web searches this easy for students in English 101, will they suffer for it later in researching for other classes?
2. Second question: In first-year composition should we emphasize only argument or also emphasize persuasion?
The approach to argument taken by most first-year composition textbooks emphasizes critical thinking, analyzing arguments for flawed reasoning or invalid evidence or appeals to emotions. The conventional approach emphasizes using sound evidence and valid logical reasons to support one’s own position in an argument to convince (logos). It recommends organizing the paper in the standard form of the argument (announce thesis, support thesis by reason 1 and its supporting evidence, reason 2 and its supporting evidence, reason 3 and its supporting evidence, refute opposing views, and conclude). It’s a good approach. Students learn how to analyze arguments and to develop their own sound reasons and evidence.
The question to discuss is, Should the argument unit in first-year composition continue this single emphasis or should we take even more time during the semester to also include teaching strategies to persuade (pathos and ethos)? Teaching persuasion teaches a valuable real-life and workplace skill and involves the whole student as reader and writer—not just the intellect. The problem is that teaching persuasion complicates the instructional unit on teaching argument and takes even more time. Teaching how to use effective persuasive strategies sometimes conflicts with the argument strategies we recommend for building a logical argument or writing a position paper. Good persuasive strategies include using evidence and examples that are emotionally manipulative and using reasons that appeal to feelings and values. There are several potentially effective organizational patterns in a persuasive argument, not one standard pattern. Does adding persuasion to the argument unit risk confusing students trying to learn how to write an effective argument? Teaching persuasion also takes a lot more time, which is in short supply in this already overloaded course. Should persuasive strategies be taught in a separate course on argument and persuasion while first-year composition focuses only on argument?
3. The third question goes to the heart of teaching argument: Is there a case to be made against emphasizing the thesis-driven argument? It’s been described as too western, adversarial, male-friendly and female-unfriendly; some claim that it discourages open-minded inquiry. Some arguments supporting this approach are summarized below. Do you agree with these critics? How might these perspectives alter the way in which argument should be taught in first-year composition courses?
Carol Huber (1989) pointed out to participants at a conference on critical thinking that this approach is "inherently authoritarian" (p. 349) because it requires a student to prove a point by only one method: using the knowledge established by authority to demonstrate the dominance of his or her position. And for female students, adversarial discourse presents an additional burden because "women find the academic environment profoundly alienating" (p. 349). Academic discourse emphasizes a disguise of objectivity that separates the inquirer from the object of knowing, and it emphasizes that the arguer’s goal is dominance over rival claims. Neither of these methods is appealing to most women who have grown up in our culture. A further problem with the adversarial paradigm is that it encourages premature closure in students' thinking about an issue. Students often undertake a research project with the sole goal of supporting a position they have already decided to defend. The resulting papers limit readers in the same way; their readers have two alternatives: agree or disagree. In Huber, C. (1989). Toward a more commodious academic discourse; in M. Weinstein & W. Oxman-Michelli (Eds.), Critical thinking: Language and inquiry across the disciplines; Conference 1988 Proceedings (pp. 347-353). Montclair, NJ: Montclair State College Institute for Critical Thinking.
Walter Ong (1981) traces the history of the thesis-driven essay as the basis of Western male-centered educational institutions since the classical Greek academy in Fighting for Life, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Several researchers have written that women find higher educational institutions profoundly alienating. Some write that women often find formal education "peripheral or irrelevant to their central interests and development." (Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. V., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.) Women students, they say, are uncomfortable with the combative model of debate where they are expected to aggressively challenge the opinions of others. Women do not like to coldly analyze a logical argument. The stance of the skeptical critic ferreting out something wrong in a logical argument is adversarial, and a form of debate reasoning that many women do not automatically enjoy the way men seem to. Women can become adept at playing the debate game, but many consider detached analysis an empty exercise. (See also Chiseri-Strater, E. (1991). Academic Literacies: The public and private discourse of university students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.) The emphasis on defending a position encourages a rush to closure and puts the reader of one's argument into the position of agreeing or disagreeing. Women prefer active questioning, understanding opposing views and why people think that way. They would rather change the minds of neutral readers than oppose dogmatists.
The Maryland Community College Consortium for Teaching Reasoning maintains a helpful website for teachers of argument and critical thinking at http://academic.pg.cc.md.us/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/
The site contains much of interest to faculty teaching disciplinary thinking in their courses:
articles, workshop handouts, lists of books on teaching thinking (including publishers' URLs and telephone numbers), links to other web sites on teaching thinking, a list of URLs for students writing persuasive arguments, and more.
Here’s a brief sample of the files you’ll find if you click on "Prince George’s Community College documents" from the MCCCTR homepage:
TEACHING THINKING ONLINE: BETTER OR WORSE THAN FACE TO FACE?
Strategies for teaching thinking online and a discussion of the question.
UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES IN THINKING
Part one summarizes research in various fields; part two summarizes the perspectives of research into learning styles and cognitive styles.
DESIGNING WRITING ASSIGNMENTS THAT TEACH THINKING
Many handouts from a workshop on designing formal and informal writing assignments that promote disciplinary reasoning. Includes model assignments.
HOW TO GET STUDENTS TO READ THEIR HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS
A procedure for ensuring that students arrive in class with their homework done, ready to participate in small group tasks about their reading.
CREATING A COMFORTABLE CLASSROOM CLIMATE
Article by Marlene Cohen of PGCC speech faculty.
PERRY'S FIVE STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL GROWTH
Four stages of intellectual and ethical growth in the model by William Perry.
BELENKY'S FIVE PERSPECTIVES ON INTELLECTUAL GROWTH
Five stages of intellectual growth in the model by Mary Field Belenky and associates.
URL’S FOR TEACHING THINKING
List of websites on teaching thinking and e-mail discussion lists on teaching thinking or of interest to community college faculty.
RESOURCES FOR TEACHING THINKING
List of books, publishers, addresses, and prices of books on teaching thinking.
USEFUL URL'S FOR ARGUMENT AND PERSUASION
Guidance for web searches, writing resources, and research sites for public policy issues, including suggested thesis statements and a list of web links for many topics suitable for argumentative essays from Glendale Community College in Arizona.