Starting the Conversation
In In Our Own Voice Chapter 3: “Starting the Conversation: The Importance of a Rhetoric of Assent When Teaching Argument” David Sumner discusses his inquiry-based approach to teaching argument. Sumner uses the “believing game,” something that we discussed earlier in the semester. As Sumner states:
“To be more specific, the argument as inquiry model I try to use in my classroom requires that instead of doubting until we have reason to believe, we believe until we have reason to doubt. If we don’t believe first, the conversation - and the inquiry - never begin.” (Sumner 59).
In this inquiry-based model, students are asked to “try on” different arguments as a starting point to then moving into thoughtful, critical engagement with the text. This is something that I think I could incorporate more into my class. Specifically, this might be a good exercise in ENG 104...to have students "try on" one another's research based arguments. What do you guys think of this? Do you use the “believing game” in your own classes?
Furthermore, Sumner discusses the ways in which he promotes this “rhetoric of assent” in the classroom, including:
- Promoting good reading skills. Specifically Sumner talks about ensuring that students have understood the text before they go into analysis. This is something that I think is really important.
- Promoting good discussion skills.
- Modeling the “believing game” for students by practicing it ourselves.
The “believing game” is discussed in the context of increasing student engagement and promoting thoughtful class discussion. This got me thinking about how to promote this kind of engagement now that we are in this online learning space. In my own classes, I have been using Canvas discussion boards as one way to try to keep the conversation going in the classroom. However, I have found that it often tends to be more of individual student monologues than discussion. What techniques have you employed during the transition to online learning in order to promote engagement and class discussion?
I would love to hear your thoughts and I hope that you are doing well.
Hi Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI've been alright.The nicer weather has certainly helped! I hope you are doing well too:)
In terms of the reading, I think it can be really beneficial for students to play the believing game, as it can force them to better understand their own arguments, along with what learning to recognize the arguments of others.
For online engagement, I have been integrating discussion boards and trying to get students to engage with others, while still allowing them to work at their own pace. I think all around the transition has been kind of clunky and awkward, but I think the method of taking things a week at a time seems to be working.
Abbie
Hi Abbie,
DeleteThanks for responding! The weather is great right now and that has definitely helped raise my spirits. I agree that taking things a week at a time is important. I have been putting out my asynchronous class materials (video lectures, discussion boards, etc.) about a week in advance. I think that this gives enough flexibility that if in the middle of the week I notice a recurring problem or question, I am able to build this into the next week's lessons if needed.
I like what you say Abbie, about the believing game being a way to get people to understand their own arguments. I had mainly been thinking of it as a way to understand the arguments you are trying to believe.
DeleteI like to hear that the asynchronous method is working well for you both. I had originally been leaving things daily similar to the original schedule, with lessons to be completed by midnight on Monday, Wednesday, Friday. However, I have slowly begun shifting it more to having everything due at the end of the week. This wasn't intentional at first, but it kind of had to be that way to accommodate what I was finding my students needed. I had been thinking that keeping a similar schedule would help students maintain a structure, to more easily complete the work. Some of my students have been saying they really like this type of schedule. However, many of them are beginning to lag behind and I am thinking I need to switch things up. Maybe just a few bigger things to complete by the end of the week? I'm unsure.
I'm thinking: On the one hand, it's me trying to keep that conversation going, but on the other, is it really boiling down to quantity over quality in the way I have things designed?
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI completely understand what you mean by getting monologues instead of discussions from students. Ironically, I get more complete, honest answers in their weekly journal entries (that the other students cannot see) than in their discussion boards, which is the opposite of opening the conversation.
I like the idea of using the believing game in ENG 104 in an attempt to “try on” other students’ research. In some ways this might be even more effective than a typical peer review where I also get very standard answers. For the most part, I feel that they think even constructive criticism is too harsh and I haven’t been very successful in getting them to offer more than a few words about what the student could do to improve a paper. However, if we were talking about the research instead of the paper (and by extension the person), we might get more fruitful questions and discussion about the research topics.
Thanks for your thoughts! Hope you are doing well.
--Mary
Hi Mary,
DeleteThanks for your response, hope you are doing well too! Like you, I have had some trouble this semester getting students to offer constructive criticism. So, I really like your idea about using the "believing game" as an alternative to traditional peer review.
Mary - kind of unrelated, and I don't know if you remember this from my book review, but this made me think of Christina Vischer Bruns - she talks about how "good reading" starts with being able to "suspend your disbelief" and believing in the text before moving on to more critical thinking. I just thought it was an interesting connection between rhetoric and lit.
DeleteI feel like the quote you give really sums up everything that Sumner was arguing. I definitely appreciated how this dovetailed with Elbow’s believing game. It just brought out another layer that I found to be interesting.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you that it’s important to make sure students first understand, then analyze. It’s all too easy to skip a step there (something I have repeatedly done, I’m afraid). I think this is where a lot of confusion can come from and it could even be the reason that some students remain quiet when class-wide discussion is opened up.
I too am using discussion boards as a way to keep conversation going. In fact, that’s mainly what I’m relying on in terms of teaching. I think this partially goes back to my own values in teaching because I don’t want it to just be me talking at my students. There has been back and forth going on between my students (which I noticed happens more when people don’t agree with what others are saying/with controversial topics). Yet, I have also noticed that these comments are just a lot of agreement or don’t really say much. I think both of these things are attributed to the fact that comments are worth points. Yes, it gets them to talk with each other more, but it can also mean that some don’t really put much thought into what they are commenting. They are just doing it to get the points, because it’s required.
Cassia,
DeleteI’ve also sometimes skipped that essential step, expecting students to come to class having already read a specific reading, understood it, and begin the analyzing process. I’m thinking next semester I want to have some kind of reading journals due by like midnight the night before so 1) hopefully they’ll actually do the readings and 2) I can look over them before class time, gage their understanding of the text, and make adjustments to the discussion based on that. Like anything, I don’t know if it will work practically until I’ve tried it, but it seems worth a shot.
I’ve also been doing quite a few discussion boards. Requiring them to respond to one of two of their classmate’s posts can help with engagement, but I’ve also run into the same thing you’ve mentioned—they mainly just agree with the other student or praise them and rarely add anything new. I’ve started adding requirements for the responses that have helped somewhat, even if it’s just something vague like “think about what insight you can offer that they might not have thought about.” I’ve definitely struggled with students simply doing things because it’s required and worth points, but I’m not sure how to break out of that in a system that rewards grades over learning most of the time.
-Jessie
I haven't directly done this before in my classroom, but I think that it would be a really helpful practice, not only to develop stronger critical thinking skills and more salient rhetorical awareness, but also in the development of empathy. I feel like, done the right way, it's quite literally putting yourself in someone else's shoes. I think I want to find a way to incorporate it into our class twitter account next semester.
ReplyDeleteHi Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI am doing well and hope you are too!
I've done a version of having my students try out the arguments of other students through the form of a mini-debate. I conducted this lesson for one of my observations back in my mentor's class. I had my students in groups of 3. For the first five minutes, the first person explained their research while the other two listened. Next, the two who listened had five minutes to prepare a rebuttal to the argument they just heard, allowing them a little time to research the issue and discuss it together. Finally, during the last five minutes, the two individuals presented their rebuttal to the original person's argument while pointing out holes or things they may have missed, giving them a new perspective on their topic. They then switched twice, allowing each person to be in the "hot seat," so to speak. I modeled this activity in class before they started, which I think was important in them understanding what they were supposed to do, as Sumner states here. We used the next class period as a reflection on this activity, allowing the students to first free write about their response and what they learned before we got together and shared in a circle. This gave them the opportunity to unpack the lesson for themselves before unpacking it all together. Many of them said this exercise showed them things they never would've thought of for their research project. I was surprised with how successful it was, as it was my first time ever doing it. I intended to do it within my class this semester with the arguments from my students research projects, but COVID-19 happened instead.
Natalie,
DeleteThis is really interesting. If everythings gets better soon and we get to go to our classrooms again(not the virtual one obviously), I'm gonna buy this idea from you. I really liked it. It helps the students facilitating a discusiion and I assume students enjoy this too.
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteLike all good things, balance is key (really starting to have a contentious relationship with that term). I think often we do not give our students the credit they deserve. Yes, of course, sometimes misunderstanding is the barrier impacting the “degree of [initial] assent,” but other times, students genuinely comprehend and can honestly speak to their contempt for readings as well.
While Sumner states there is no reason one must buy into all arguments (noting particularly, white supremacist arguments on page 62), in a way, he is advocating then, for initial acceptance of the arguments he prescribes…I think as far as honing student motivation, teachers can try experimenting with instead, “What is it about this text that you do not like?” Though Sumner states all academics are likely to get higher grades for distrusting a text, “taking issues with it” (61), I have never found this to be true. Rather, it is those who continue to question for the sake of building and advancing theoretical frameworks that is important, not the distrust or malice that is of value.
But back to my point. If teachers are noticing there is a discontent stewing in the room, or if teachers are to later that day realize that discontent was the issue, then framing classroom discussion around this discontent (I don’t think) is a bad idea. “Force” students to depart from their fence-straddling. Have them explain to you why they are hesitant to assent to the content in front of them. Here, YOU can correct misunderstandings where they occur (if it is a simple comprehension issue) and here you may also have the experience of carving out time for a classroom debate over the issues housed in the text. Maybe YOUR expert blind is revealed in this moment… who knows?
Great post!
-Kelli
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteI'm so interested in trying out this approach. I want to brainstorm a way to fit it in to my 104 class when I'm not having my students write argument papers. (I found I was spending a lot of the semester reminding them that we are not trying to persuade readers).
But, I really like the concept, and I could see it fitting really well into ENG 103, or any class in which you're having students make a claim/take a stance. My mentor last semester had students do a fishbowl discussion in which they chose a topic as a class (they chose abortion in light of potential new abortion laws that were a big topic of conversation at that time). Then each student had to bring in two sources to contribute to the discussion (the idea being they weren't just contributing unfounded opinions). But I really like the idea of doing a similar exercise while requiring students to switch viewpoints. I can't think of a better way to thoroughly consider the opposition's argument. If you have to argue it yourself, it'd be hard not to at least seriously think about the points you're making.
Thanks for bringing this up, Taylor! Let me know if you think of how you might want to incorporate this into your class, or if you have any good ideas.