I thought the Kroll article was helpful. It’s difficult for students to see past the idea of argument as a sporting event of adversarial conflict with clear winners/ losers. I think students are terrified of not “getting it right” and so framing argument in terms of right/ wrong helps relieve that anxiety. Wrestling with the complexity of a conversation feels more abstract.

I’d like to piggyback Alison’s point: How to get students to write thesis statements that are not artificial, formulaic and static? My feeble attempt is to tell students to consciously avoid writing thesis statements like they did in high school. I once banned them outright. Maybe that’s too extreme. Recently, I try and frame the idea of a “thesis” using alternative language like encouraging a “line of reasoning” or “controlling concept.” Not sure how that’s working out for me. Some get it, others don’t. Some embrace it, others are resistant because the traditional “thesis” has worked for them in the past. But even these approaches can be presented in a forced manner. The best conclusion I’ve come to is to bring in multiple pieces of published writing and as a class examine various ways authors present an argument.

But I think one of the defining features of Kroll’s article is to help students see argument always in relation to audience. So getting students to argue effectively means having them see beyond the classroom assignment and make audience less of a nebulous concept.