31 August 2011, Blog 2.
Berlin, James A. “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories.” College English 44.8 (December 1982) 765-777. NCTE.
Mortenson, Steven 2., “Should We Teach Personal Transformation as a Part of
Interpersonal Communication.” Communication Education 56.3 (July 2007) 401-408. Routledge.
As with other articles I have read from Berlin (in Four Keys of Composition), he makes pleasing lists which are difficult to deny. After listing these elements of argument: rational, emotional, and ethical, as with the rhetorical triangle, he makes a flowchart of truth to cite Aristotle—rationality brings truth, rationality is important, and rationality consists of enthymeme and example (768). With just a bit of explanation, I find that freshman composition students very much latch on to this sort of derivative explanation. Just as in biology class, they want a proof they can take to home and think with, or a truth with which to write. Berlin later relates that truth can be learned but not taught; I would counter that the means to discover truth can be taught (771), and that goal originated the Academy and the university ideal. It’s why people like teaching writing—maybe it is the small town in which I teach, but I see how much pleasure my students derive from coming up with a proof through inquiry. Descriptive writing lends more to the “analogical method,” and perhaps that is why we often start with narrative pieces in a 101 course.
Regarding Mortenson, which article I also enjoyed, the greatest affront to my brain deals with the sidewalk experiment--does anyone think it works? I'm barred from trying it, but I really doubt these results. Women do defer space, but I believe men will still bend over backwards to avoid contact with a woman. Indeed I think I would be more likely to bump a woman who looked directly at me. Also, how in the world did Mortenson come up with this experiment in unconsciously inflecting yes and no? It seems to me that would indicate more about the students' tiring of the exercise than that they "became emotional" (404).
The most effective arguments do not end up combative, as Mortenson states on 405, turning into fighting; effective arguments have the prerequisites of respect and civility and clear thinking, not a fight. Those solid premises of argumentation do work, Mortenson doesn't preclude that, only saying that we "often" fight, and I agree. Those fights usually consist of dogma and pathos, though, neither of which my students say are persuasive in writing or in real life. I do _very_ much like the later exploration of the "metaphor of /progress/ and the hidden liberalism of conservatives, and the earlier questions about falling in love (405). We can require more complex essays than that from students, but these open questions open the floodgates on their writing. I've had great luck with the "what if" questions Mortenson puts down (406), and I doubt that reality is suspended by asking them (though often practicality is suspended). Those handy questions are complemented by the later paper, apparently from Bill Rawlins work and Neil Postman's work, requiring both/and logic. I did not understand how those logical connections were as important as the beginning of the question, "How might my personality be a product..." (406). To me, these sound more like Queestions and Complications essays than Contentions. The goal of these lines of questioning is to "produce transformation" by clarifying and applying ideas (407), and they would fulfill the promise of sticking with a student.
No comments:
Post a Comment