[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1126 - 3 msgs
Charles Nelson
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Sat, 7 Oct 2006 17:49:13 -0400
------=_Part_173566_24108489.1160257753347
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Bill, perhaps my choice of words have given the wrong impression. Let me
touch on your points.
You've highlighted one point that for me is a continuum, not an either-or
sitution, that of teaching "certain tools to move toward independent
thinking." In all fields, there are some axiomatic tools. At least they're
axiomatic until someone figures a tool that counters or seems to work better
than those axioms or principles. So, yes, the tools we use shape "the
conclusions they will reach." Even so, the same tools of rhetoric and
writing theories can be used to reach different conclusions. Otherwise, we'd
all agree. It's when an instructor attempts to force the use of those tools
toward particular socio-cultural-political conclusions in the classroom that
I object. On a sidenote, saying that everything is political makes the term
meaningless.
I agree with your thoughts on critical thinking with respect to being open
to other perspectives and "balanc[ing], and that individuals are societal
constructs. From that perspective, "thinking on one's own" is too strong. I
imagine I'm using that phrase, at least in part, as a counter to
manipulating students toward particular conclusions. In part, I use it
because according to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan), all human
beings have three essential needs for motivation: autonomy, competence, and
social relatedness. As motivation is an important aspect of learning, I feel
I give my students more autonomy in reaching particular decisions if I don't
make known my own position on socio-cultural-political issues but simply
respond to the effectiveness of their arguments.
On your last paragraph asking whether I use a variety of other questions, on
each of them, yes, I do. I simply didn't include them because I felt the
ones I mentioned met my goals of indicating how I didn't introject my
personal positions on student arguments. I wasn't attempting to give an
in-depth view of a semester-long class. So, I'm not sure how what I said
made my logic "masculinist" and objective. Perhaps, you felt I was talking
tongue-in-cheek about a "harmony of illusions" or perhaps the gaps in my
writing suggest positions that I don't hold. But, certainly with respect to
objectivity, I would argue that you're more of an "objectivist" than I am.
You've used the terms "validity" (in an earlier email) and "truth." There is
no "truth" to be discovered and no "validity" of perspectives. These are
positivistic terms, not constructivist terms. Individuals are born into a
social environment that strongly shapes how they construct their
understanding and perspective of the world, but it is the individual who
does the constructing without direct access to "reality." Internalizing the
social plane is not a transfer process but a constructing process.
My understanding of learning theories indicates that when an instructor
takes a strong stance on issues in the classroom, it can diminish the
autonomy of students and can alienate them, both of which negatively affects
their learning. For this reason, I oppose supporting the status quo or
attacking it in the classroom. Instead, I focus on helping my students to
develop as writers and as thinkers.
Charles
Gosh, I'm embarrassed to be on the list, talking about this at 10:15. =
> But I think I might have isolated a crucial difference in our thinking, =
> Charles. Let me see if you agree that what I convey is what you =
> believe. You believe that education is a system whereby instructors =
> succeed when students learn to "think on their own." Am I understanding =
> you correctly? If so, let me voice my objection. If we are teaching =
> the appropriateness of certain tools to move toward independent =
> thinking, we are manipulating the students' thought processes. We have =
> made a political choice. By presenting the "right" manner in which they =
> can reach their choices, we have influenced tremendously the conclusions =
> they will reach. =20
> =20
> Further, I do not believe critical thinking means thinking on one's own. =
> Rather, I think a critical thinker lets the ideas of others penetrate =
> and balances the benefits to him or herself of certain ideologies =
> against the effects those ideologies will have on others.
> =20
> I do not believe in such a thing as "thinking on your own." The =
> individual is a societal construct. What he or she perceives as =
> individuality in thought has been socialized into him or her. =
> Experience, observation, logic, emotion, knowledge, and even divine =
> intervention (if we believe in such a thing) shapes our thoughts. We =
> cannot step out of that to think on our own. We obviously inhabit =
> separate "independent" spaces in this world, but our thoughts, as was =
> once said, is conversation internalized. Critical thinkers, among other =
> things, internalize varied conversations.
> =20
> Regarding the questions you ask your students, don't you ever ask about =
> the validity of the evidence they present? Do you never ask them about =
> the credibility of their sources? Do you not suggest that there's an =
> ethical dimension to the conclusions they reach? What if persuading an =
> audience to make an argument more effective means burying evidence that =
> runs contrary to their argument? What about the place of emotion? =
> Feminist rhetoricians would have a field day with your reliance on =
> masculinist logic and objectivity. Probably most important, though, in =
> a world saturated by corporate, capitalist propaganda, how do you help =
> students determine the truth when facts collide? I just don't think =
> this issue is as easy as you say. I think by asking the questions you =
> do to the exclusion of more penetrating ones, you are leading your =
> students to a competitive, self-interested mode of argument that upholds =
> the status quo. Can you show me that I'm wrong?
> =20
> Bill
>
>
------=_Part_173566_24108489.1160257753347
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Bill, perhaps my choice of words have given the wrong impression. Let me to=
uch on your points.<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">You've highligh=
ted one point that for me is a continuum, not an either-or sitution, that o=
f teaching "certain tools to move toward independent thinking." I=
n all fields, there are some axiomatic tools. At least they're axiomatic un=
til someone figures a tool that counters or seems to work better than those=
axioms or principles. So, yes, the tools we use shape "the conclusion=
s they will reach." Even so, the same tools of rhetoric and writing th=
eories can be used to reach different conclusions. Otherwise, we'd all agre=
e. It's when an instructor attempts to force the use of those tools toward =
particular socio-cultural-political conclusions in the classroom that I obj=
ect. On a sidenote, saying that everything is political makes the term mean=
ingless.
<br><br>I agree with your thoughts on critical thinking with respect to bei=
ng open to other perspectives and "balanc[ing], and that individuals a=
re societal constructs. From that perspective, "thinking on one's own&=
quot; is too strong. I imagine I'm using that phrase, at least in part, as =
a counter to manipulating students toward particular conclusions. In part, =
I use it because according to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan), =
all human beings have three essential needs for motivation: autonomy, compe=
tence, and social relatedness. As motivation is an important aspect of lear=
ning, I feel I give my students more autonomy in reaching particular decisi=
ons if I don't make known my own position on socio-cultural-political issue=
s but simply respond to the effectiveness of their arguments.
<br><br>On your last paragraph asking whether I use a variety of other ques=
tions, on each of them, yes, I do. I simply didn't include them because I f=
elt the ones I mentioned met my goals of indicating how I didn't introject =
my personal positions on student arguments. I wasn't attempting to give an =
in-depth view of a semester-long class. So, I'm not sure how what I said ma=
de my logic "masculinist" and objective. Perhaps, you felt I was =
talking tongue-in-cheek about a "harmony of illusions" or perhaps=
the gaps in my writing suggest positions that I don't hold. But, certainly=
with respect to objectivity, I would argue that you're more of an "ob=
jectivist" than I am. You've used the terms "validity" (in a=
n earlier email) and "truth." There is no "truth" to be=
discovered and no "validity" of perspectives. These are positivi=
stic terms, not constructivist terms. Individuals are born into a social en=
vironment that strongly shapes how they construct their understanding and p=
erspective of the world, but it is the individual who does the constructing=
without direct access to "reality." Internalizing the social pla=
ne is not a transfer process but a constructing process.
<br><br>My understanding of learning theories indicates that when an instru=
ctor takes a strong stance on issues in the classroom, it can diminish the =
autonomy of students and can alienate them, both of which negatively affect=
s their learning. For this reason, I oppose
</span><span class=3D"gmail_quote"> supporting the status
quo or attacking it in the classroom. Instead, I focus on helping my studen=
ts
to develop as writers and as thinkers. </span><br><span class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><br>Charles<br><br><br></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">
Gosh, I'm embarrassed to be on the list, talking about this at 10:15. =
=3D<br>But I think I might have isolated a crucial difference in our =
thinking, =3D<br>Charles. Let me see if you agree that what I co=
nvey is what you =3D<br>
believe. You believe that education is a system whereby instruct=
ors =3D<br>succeed when students learn to "think on their own."&n=
bsp; Am I understanding =3D<br>you correctly? If so, let me=
voice my objection. If we are teaching =3D
<br>the appropriateness of certain tools to move toward independent =3D<br>=
thinking, we are manipulating the students' thought processes. W=
e have =3D<br>made a political choice. By presenting the "r=
ight" manner in which they =3D
<br>can reach their choices, we have influenced tremendously the conclusion=
s =3D<br>they will reach. =3D20<br>=3D20<br>Further, I do not believe criti=
cal thinking means thinking on one's own. =3D<br> Rather, I think a critica=
l thinker lets the ideas of others penetrate =3D
<br>and balances the benefits to him or herself of certain ideologies =3D<b=
r>against the effects those ideologies will have on others.<br>=3D20<br>I d=
o not believe in such a thing as "thinking on your own." &nb=
sp;The =3D<br>
individual is a societal construct. What he or she perceives as =
=3D<br>individuality in thought has been socialized into him or her. &=
nbsp;=3D<br>Experience, observation, logic, emotion, knowledge, and even di=
vine =3D<br>intervention (if we believe in such a thing) shapes our thought=
s. We =3D
<br>cannot step out of that to think on our own. We obviously in=
habit =3D<br>separate "independent" spaces in this world, but our=
thoughts, as was =3D<br>once said, is conversation internalized. &nbs=
p;Critical thinkers, among other =3D
<br>things, internalize varied conversations.<br>=3D20<br>Regarding the que=
stions you ask your students, don't you ever ask about =3D<br>the validity =
of the evidence they present? Do you never ask them about =3D<br=
>the credibility of their sources? Do you not suggest that there=
's an =3D
<br>ethical dimension to the conclusions they reach? What if per=
suading an =3D<br>audience to make an argument more effective means burying=
evidence that =3D<br>runs contrary to their argument? What abou=
t the place of emotion? =3D
<br>Feminist rhetoricians would have a field day with your reliance on =3D<=
br>masculinist logic and objectivity. Probably most important, t=
hough, in =3D<br>a world saturated by corporate, capitalist propaganda, how=
do you help =3D
<br>students determine the truth when facts collide? I just don'=
t think =3D<br>this issue is as easy as you say. I think by aski=
ng the questions you =3D<br>do to the exclusion of more penetrating ones, y=
ou are leading your =3D
<br>students to a competitive, self-interested mode of argument that uphold=
s =3D<br>the status quo. Can you show me that I'm wrong?<br>=3D2=
0<br>Bill<br><br></blockquote></div>
------=_Part_173566_24108489.1160257753347--