What? No Boyce this week? I was looking forward to curling up with my favorite dog--
of course, I have a favorite, but only because we've got only one dog, a gorgeous, geriatric pit bull named Kimber -- and relaxing with some more of Boyce's advice.
Reading two argument pieces serves to bolster my confidence that I am not old school and validates my teaching philosophy as it pertains to the argumentation. I've previously written about enjoying the Kastely article already and finding common ground with him as he moves from trying to convince people to seeking truth. As for the Kroll, I've always asked that students respectfully nod to the other side of the argument. I liken it to karate fighters who bow to their opponents. I ask students to do this early in the essay for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that they understand the depths of the discussion into which they are entering. And second, it shows respect for others' views and minimizes bulldozing over others.
I actually received my one and only someone negative student evaluation because of this practice. This kid was just a stick in the mud, all the way around, so I didn't take his comment to heart. But, he was ticked because I told the class that I didn't want to read any pro-evolution OR pro-creationism papers. Been there. Done that. Old story! I asked for new and interested arguments. When he became insistent that he REALLY wanted to argue for evolution (as though evolution longs for his undying devotion), I reminded him that he would have to "nod respectfully to the other side." Oh, boy was he mad. Anyway, he changed his mind and wrote about something equally thrilling- like the legalization of pot. Wow! Never read that one before. ZZZzzz....
By the way, no matter how rehabilitated the NFL insists Micheal Vick is, I'll always hate him for Kimber's sake.
No comments:
Post a Comment