[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teachers shaping student discourse
Wikoff, Katherine H.
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:24:55 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D822.B22A5692
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In Wayne Booth's Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent, there's a
really nice discussion early on about "rhetorical failure" as
exemplified by a 16-day student sit-in at the University of Chicago's
administration building in 1969. As communications flew back and forth,
student demands escalated, administration dug in their heels, and each
side saw the other as becoming increasingly irrational. In the end,
several students were expelled and the campus was enveloped by an
atmosphere of mistrust between students and faculty. It was a long time
before effective teaching and learning resumed, according to Booth. =20
=20
I return often to Modern Dogma, as well as the appendix essay on the
doubting game versus the believing game in Peter Elbow's Writing without
Teachers, because both speak to the importance of making good faith
efforts to deal reasonably with others in the pursuit of "truth." Booth
says, "If philosophy is defined as inquiry into certain truth, then what
I pursue here is not philosophy but rhetoric: the art of discovering
warrantable beliefs in shared discourse" (xiii). The study of rhetoric
examines "how men succeed or fail in discovering together, in discourse,
new levels of truth (or at least agreement) that neither side suspected
before" (11). In the University of Chicago sit-in, Booth says, rhetoric
failed because of "a mistaken conception of the nature and possibilities
of argument about important matters" (11).
=20
If we're committed to a diverse student population and multicultural
perspectives in our classrooms, we also have a special responsibility to
help students understand the "rhetoric of assent" that Booth describes
and "the believing game" that Elbow describes. Such thinking and
interacting both with other people and with "Other" ideas doesn't come
naturally to students, given the more destructive dialectic of
knowledge-seeking (what Elbow calls "the doubting game") so prevalent in
our culture. Students may never have seen or experienced the more
constructive method of argument created by a rhetoric of assent. Booth
says, "When I assent to your thought (or symphony or novel or account of
your divorce), the line between us grows dim; in the ideal case it
disappears, and it is not surprising that many theologians and
rhetoricians have echoed Newman's effort to build a grammar of assent
and Kenneth Burke's to build a grammar, rhetoric, and symbolic of
identification" (xvi). =20
=20
The practical application of this theory is a struggle, but these two
works by Booth and Elbow have provided me with good insights for framing
an explanation to students about why "civil" discourse is so important.
=20
Katherine Wikoff, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
General Studies Department
Milwaukee School of Engineering
wikoff@msoe.edu
=20
=20
________________________________
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Terri
Fredrick
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:54 AM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teachers shaping student discourse
=20
I've enjoyed reading the responses to this module. I was particularly
struck by one of the examples Laura Card gave in her response:
<snip>
Sometimes coercion comes from other students in the class because of the
abdication of the responsibility of the teacher to conduct the class.
For instance, my daughter recently came to me in great frustration
because her teacher at a local state-run institution of higher education
had done nothing when a student had voiced his views on a topic only to
have another student ridicule him by snorting and saying, "Oh, so now
we're supposed to take stupid pills." The teacher remained silent and
the first student was silenced. The other students in the class were
uncomfortable, but didn't know how to continue the discussion with such
antagonism in the air and were also silenced.
<snip>
For me, this example doesn't so much provoke a specific response as a
cacophony of brain sound. Reading this example, I have a range of
(conflicting) thoughts revolving around questions like these:
* What is a teacher's responsibility to create a classroom space where
students feel "safe"? where students feel protected from the angry
and/or prejudicial discourse of their fellow classmates?
* What is a teacher's responsibility in shaping students' discourse with
one another? to define for (adult) students what makes discourse
appropriate or inappropriate?=20
* Where marks the limits of that teacher responsibility? the door of the
classroom? the campus? class time? the class roster?
* Where is the teacher's responsibility for shaping discourse and
speaking for the silenced distinct from general civic responsibility?
I can't imagine myself letting an in-class comment about "stupid pills"
go unchallenged, but I also see problems with other potential responses.
One standard response: "We don't speak with one another that way in this
class" is definitely a form of malicious coercion. I silence one student
for the sake of others.=20
An interrogatory approach: "What about that viewpoint do you find
stupid?" might open the door for other voices but begins by giving
further voice to the prejudice.=20
Telling the class that such approaches are rhetorically ineffective
seems to me increasingly to be a lie. The politicians and Ann Coulter's
of the world (disclosure: I'm a liberal) make big money and get power
through just this type of silencing rhetoric. Do we benefit students by
leaping into the fray and defending their honor (however disingenuous we
might be in our defense), or do we contribute to their silence ... to
letting others speak for them?
All of these questions lead back, I think, to the issue of the ABR
because the most obvious interpretation of the ABR would be to create an
anti-political classroom environment (which, of course, would be a
political choice to maintain the status quo, but at least most students
wouldn't realize it).=20
Alternatively, we could try to create a classroom environment where
every position is equally accepted, students are gently prodded to shore
up their beliefs rather than challenge them, and students speak to one
another in kindness. A pretty option but not one that prepares students
for life outside our classrooms.
Like Bill, Doug, and Laura, I don't advocate dismissing the ABR
outright, but I've already typed too, so I'm stopping.
Back to malicious coercion ... I mean, grading. ;-)
Terri
--=20
Dr. Terri Fredrick
Eastern Illinois University
tfredrick@gmail.com=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D822.B22A5692
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
name=3D"PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>In Wayne Booth’s <i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of =
Assent</span></i>, there’s
a really nice discussion early on about “rhetorical failure” =
as exemplified
by a 16-day student sit-in at the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType =
w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType>
of <st1:PlaceName =
w:st=3D"on">Chicago</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>’s
administration building in 1969. As communications flew back and =
forth, student
demands escalated, administration dug in their heels, and each side saw =
the
other as becoming increasingly irrational. In the end, several =
students
were expelled and the campus was enveloped by an atmosphere of mistrust =
between
students and faculty. It was a long time before effective teaching =
and
learning resumed, according to Booth. =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I return often to <i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>Modern Dogma</span></i>, as well as the =
appendix
essay on the doubting game versus the believing game in Peter =
Elbow’s <i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>Writing without Teachers</span></i>, because =
both
speak to the importance of making good faith efforts to deal reasonably =
with
others in the pursuit of “truth.” Booth says, =
“If
philosophy is defined as inquiry into certain truth, then what I pursue =
here is
not philosophy but rhetoric: the art of discovering warrantable beliefs =
in
shared discourse” (xiii). The study of rhetoric examines =
“how
men succeed or fail in discovering together, in discourse, new levels of =
truth
(or at least agreement) that neither side suspected before” =
(11).
In the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType =
w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType>
of <st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Chicago</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> =
sit-in, Booth
says, rhetoric failed because of “a mistaken conception of the =
nature and
possibilities of argument about important matters” =
(11).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If we’re committed to a =
diverse
student population and multicultural perspectives in our classrooms, we =
also
have a special responsibility to help students understand the =
“rhetoric
of assent” that Booth describes and “the believing =
game” that
Elbow describes. Such thinking and interacting both with other =
people and
with “Other” ideas doesn’t come naturally to students, =
given the
more destructive dialectic of knowledge-seeking (what Elbow calls =
“the
doubting game”) so prevalent in our culture. Students may =
never
have seen or experienced the more constructive method of argument =
created by a
rhetoric of assent. Booth says, “When I assent to your =
thought (or
symphony or novel or account of your divorce), the line between us grows =
dim;
in the ideal case it disappears, and it is not surprising that many =
theologians
and rhetoricians have echoed Newman’s effort to build a grammar of =
assent
and Kenneth Burke’s to build a grammar, rhetoric, and symbolic of
identification” (xvi). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The practical application of this =
theory
is a struggle, but these two works by Booth and Elbow have provided me =
with
good insights for framing an explanation to students about why =
“civil”
discourse is so important.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Katherine Wikoff, =
Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Associate =
Professor<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>General Studies =
Department<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceName =
w:st=3D"on"><font size=3D2
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>Milwaukee</span></font></st1:PlaceName><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy
face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> <st1:PlaceType
w:st=3D"on">School</st1:PlaceType></span></font></st1:place><font =
size=3D2
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'> of Engineering<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><a =
href=3D"mailto:wikoff@msoe.edu">wikoff@msoe.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></fo=
nt></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
size=3D2
face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Terri Fredrick<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, September =
14, 2006
10:54 AM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b>
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> =
[Teaching_Composition]
Re: Teachers shaping student discourse</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>I've enjoyed reading the responses to this module. I was =
particularly
struck by one of the examples Laura Card gave in her response:<br>
<br>
<snip><br>
Sometimes coercion comes from other students in the class because of the
abdication of the responsibility of the teacher to conduct the class. =
For
instance, my daughter recently came to me in great frustration because =
her
teacher at a local state-run institution of higher education had done =
nothing
when a student had voiced his views on a topic only to have another =
student
ridicule him by snorting and saying, "Oh, so now we're supposed to =
take
stupid pills." The teacher remained silent and the first student =
was
silenced. The other students in the class were uncomfortable, but didn't =
know
how to continue the discussion with such antagonism in the air and were =
also
silenced.<br>
<snip><br>
<br>
For me, this example doesn't so much provoke a specific response as a =
cacophony
of brain sound. Reading this example, I have a range of (conflicting) =
thoughts
revolving around questions like these:<br>
<br>
* What is a teacher's responsibility to create a classroom space where =
students
feel "safe"? where students feel protected from the angry =
and/or
prejudicial discourse of their fellow classmates?<br>
* What is a teacher's responsibility in shaping students' discourse with =
one
another? to define for (adult) students what makes discourse appropriate =
or
inappropriate? <br>
* Where marks the limits of that teacher responsibility? the door of the
classroom? the campus? class time? the class roster?<br>
* Where is the teacher's responsibility for shaping discourse and =
speaking for
the silenced distinct from general civic responsibility?<br>
<br>
I can't imagine myself letting an in-class comment about "stupid
pills" go unchallenged, but I also see problems with other =
potential
responses. One standard response: "We don't speak with one another =
that
way in this class" is definitely a form of malicious coercion. I =
silence
one student for the sake of others. <br>
<br>
An interrogatory approach: "What about that viewpoint do you find
stupid?" might open the door for other voices but begins by giving =
further
voice to the prejudice. <br>
<br>
Telling the class that such approaches are rhetorically ineffective =
seems to me
increasingly to be a lie. The politicians and Ann Coulter's of the world
(disclosure: I'm a liberal) make big money and get power through just =
this type
of silencing rhetoric. Do we benefit students by leaping into the fray =
and
defending their honor (however disingenuous we might be in our defense), =
or do
we contribute to their silence ... to letting others speak for them?<br>
<br>
All of these questions lead back, I think, to the issue of the ABR =
because the
most obvious interpretation of the ABR would be to create an =
anti-political
classroom environment (which, of course, would be a political choice to
maintain the status quo, but at least most students wouldn't realize =
it). <br>
<br>
Alternatively, we could try to create a classroom environment where =
every
position is equally accepted, students are gently prodded to shore up =
their
beliefs rather than challenge them, and students speak to one another in
kindness. A pretty option but not one that prepares students for life =
outside
our classrooms.<br>
<br>
Like Bill, Doug, and Laura, I don't advocate dismissing the ABR =
outright, but
I've already typed too, so I'm stopping.<br>
<br>
Back to malicious coercion ... I mean, grading. ;-)<br>
<br>
Terri<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Terri Fredrick<br>
Eastern <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceName =
w:st=3D"on">Illinois</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType
w:st=3D"on">University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place><br>
<a href=3D"mailto:tfredrick@gmail.com">tfredrick@gmail.com</a> =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D822.B22A5692--