Scott presented Gerald Graff and his theory of 'teaching the conflicts'. I think Graff is an interesting individual. Scott says he focuses on argument and how everything can turn into an argument. Students need to know both sides of an argument in order to properly present the argument to the audience. This sounds a lot like Bartholomae - be skeptical, do not trust. I think it is good to question and argue, but there has to be some solution sometime. I don't believe that all writing should be centered around 'argumentation'.
"Reduction is a good thing." Okay, I agree. Do you understand what you are saying or arguing? That is important for students to recognize. Regurgitation is such a disgusting thing. However, I do not think the shortest route possible is always the best. For example, students need to explain what they research and read. Sometimes that is a very lengthy paper and process. They can understand the topic by evaluating and reflecting what they read. An internal dialogue would most certainly help in this case (Mr. Murray), and understanding the discourse from which the topic comes (Ms. Bizzell) will also assist in the argument. So I tend to disagree that reduction is absolutely a good thing. But when we teach argument/persuasion and synthesis, we want students to know both sides of the argument so they are properly armed and prepared for any confrontation or questions.
Teaching students how to read and write 'the conflicts' is important, but there is so much more to writing than just arguing. Students need to know many aspects to the writing process and product; to narrow it down to just one type of mode/genre is unfair to the students. To constantly argue will constantly create conflict leading to more of the same. When does it end so a product and solution can finally happen - hmmm... sounds like public education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree in one sense, that students should be introduced and asked to write in different genres. I would think that arguing the conflicts would be persuasive writing.
ReplyDeleteWhile all the genres can be interesting and make good writing and reading, I think persuasive,or writing the conflicts may help students more than any other genres to learn to think.We would all agree that students today need to learn to think, to observe, analyze , synthesize and defend with convincing support.
As we know we sometimes don't take a stand or form an opinion until we are attacked by some other strong stand or position. We have to think, "Why do I believe this?" In addition, when we are challenged with a certain ideology, often comparing and contrasting comes into play, as well as cause and effect, and sequential writing in the convincing of an argument. On the one hand all genres are interesting and worthy of learning, but on the other hand persuasive writing causes us to call up memory, facts and experiences and arrange them in a linear counter attack.