Toulmin Logic

So, this is an attempt at trying to explain what Toulmin logic is, how it is used, and how it changed argumentation.  When this name was dropped in class I was one of the "deer in headlights" staring back at Dr. Rice.  I wanted to say that the name was familiar, but until I started looking around on the internet nothing was clicking.  Here is what I found out-this is still somewhat shaky, but will at least get the base ideas out since I didn't have time to read The Uses of Argument, Introduction to Reasoning, or Human Understanding maybe the blog-o-sphere is just the place to try to form these ideas more completely.
To start with there are six elements to analyzing arguments or as Toulmin calls it "practical argumentation", which include: Claim, Evidence, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier.  This methodology of argumentation was a move away from absolutists' theoretical argumentation toward something more practical-similar to courtroom argumentation.  Instead of trying to pile up evidence to make an absolutist claim, this model starts with a claim then provides justification for it.  Toulmin thought "that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification.  Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim."
It is also important to note that, from what I've read, all good arguments will use claim, evidence, and warrant-but not necessarily backing, rebuttal, and qualifiers every time.  This is a good example of the logic in use, this plus the two previous links on 'Toulmin' should be able to show this process in a couple of different ways in order to better understand his theories.  The importance of these ideas' introduction into the world of rhetoric wasn't discovered immediately, but when rhetoricians Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger got a hold of the material it was implemented.  Toulmin didn't even realize that his ideas of logic were applicable to rhetoric and other areas until Introduction to Reasoning when he make the first comments about rhetoric.  This book was published 21 years after The Uses of Argument hit the market, so his ideas slowly percolated over into the world of rhetoric, but it certainly wasn't immediate.  I like the simplicity to this approach, and how it really does make one's argument easier to follow, understand, and be convinced.

Kairos

It is an interesting idea that blogs are more effective, because they are traditionally short and easy to create.  It allows a space that has been rising in popularity  due to its ability to say things at the right time.  The American readership seems to be shifting away from the print media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) in order to get the most up to date news.  They have been shifting to blogs and the internet in order to get material from those who were actually there.  We are moving to a position of prizing the first hand account over the 24 hour new/media conglomerate stations.  The space of a blog fits with a kairotic form of learning that allows the right things to be said, in the correct amount, and at the right time.  Blogs are a great way to promote kairos within the classroom if the syllabus can change in order to suit the students' learning.  The static syllabus cannot attack these issues with the same levity simply because they lack the ability to change to better suit the audience (student and their writing's audience).   If the syllabus can change the material to better suit the audience, or if the syllabus allows the blog as a space for the student's to respond in a kairotic way (due to short concise nature, accessibility, and informality).
I am trying to go back within my own syllabus to see how I can make emphasize kairos within the student's writing.  I think that blogs or moodles as a form of reflection to sum up each week is a good route.  I could also see having the students find material through others blogs that would relate to their topic, and use that as a launching point for their own research agenda and thesis building.  Something like make the students find a blog that discusses their chosen genre (video games, literature, engineering, architecture, painting, etc.) and use it to form an argument that would be written up and turned in through blog or moodle with a link to the original blog they are refuting/agreeing/comparing with/to.  This would allow their own writing to become more kairotic as well as the syllabus supporting it.  It needs more thought, but I think I am starting to be able to see the usefulness of kairos within the syllabus and classroom.
I am trying to brainstorm on other possible ways to make my own syllabus to be able to conform to the weekly agenda that is now required, and also make it adjustable to better suit the students.  I think the assignments could be the key in filling in this gap.  I wonder if there are any other approaches outside of the blog-o-sphere that could also be enabling the use of kairos within the classroom.  Could film & tv be used in this way?  Could a greater emphasis on culture and societal impacts actually make my syllabus more kairotic?  I still keep going back to the assignments as the way to attack this within my syllabus, but what do you think-are there other ways?

The Fringe (pertaining to Composition-not the FOX show)

Our conversation in class on Tuesday left my mind moving in many different directions.  I think within this blog I am going to have to be a little schizophrenic and play my own devil's advocate, because I am going to begin by why I like the fringe and why I think it is useful and then go to the other side of the argument.  For this I will be referring to this handy .jpg I made just for  you...

Example of Critical/Scholarly Movement: or a heart monitor w/ irregular beat 

The fringe is important because I think that is the work in which people are allowed to bring in their under life and let it effect the literature.  For example, I have been working on some articles that focus on graphic novels' impact on film.  So, through the film classes that I've taken here I was able (and encouraged to) bring my comic-book-nerd-under-life into my writing.  I think that this is not only a subject that is important to film today, but it also makes me excited as hell to be able to be bringing in V for Vendetta, From Hell, 300, Watchmen, Batman(I have tons but specific to the Nolan movies), etc.  This has not only made me ecstatic, but also I think I produced some of my best writing to date.  The black line from "A" to "B" is so boring, because it doesn't allow the caveats that I think can broaden and expand ideas and learning.  It seems too formalist to me, "here is your text and the premier scholar... You there! No thinking outside the box!".  Ugh, sends chills down my spine, because I've been through those types of classes and I hated them.  The fringe is better because it allows for the students to branch out from the literature/composition/core concept and apply it to something else to see how it fits.  Let them try to jam the block shaped like a star into the the side of the box with the circle shaped hole cut out of it until they figure out it fits much better w/ the star shaped hole cut out.  Through this process I think it creates better students in the end, because they can figure things out things for themselves.

On the other hand, I do realize that the quickest route between two points is a straight line.  For progress's sake (not only in composition & literature classrooms, but medical advancement, scientific findings, all forms of research, etc.) it is best to find a more direct way to get to point "A" to point "B".  The faster we can achieve that, the faster we can move on to the next leap from "B" to "C", and so on, and so on.  What about all the time wasted by the red line's wasted movement?  What could we achieved already if we weren't wasting time arguing all these points (some of which are bound to be more asinine than others)?  These are just digressions that could be keeping us from the larger truth.  This approach would create better students because they would know more from having less digressions.  These students would leave having gotten to point "D" where as those red students barely made it to "B".

I went a little bipolar there on purpose, because I feel both have valid arguments.  how can we include both?  Do I have to become the classroom Czar and rule on what is and is not valid digressions? "Good point Timmy, let's expand on that..." or "Fred, stick to the text"  I think it is a hard line to find the acceptable amount of digression that allows the benefits of the fringe, but not to take away from what the goals of the class actually are.  I think my own under life would still influence my own outlook of what is valid.

And now for a digression.  This is Jon Stewart's speech at last Saturday's rally for sanity/fear.  This is at the very end of everything-the one semi serious moment.  I think it relates our discussion of only A & B being heard if the fringe isn't there, and too much fringe creates chaos.  It's about 12min long and relates to his perception of the media, not composition. Regardless, it relates (kinda).

Invenio

I have been thinking a lot about invention since I am revising a syllabus to work in a more open way.  I have always tried to use societal and cultural things in class to spark invention through writing, but is that enough?  I personally feel that I have a place and was accepted in our program because I may see things differently or in a different light.  I have never been a traditional student who excelled in my studies (I made straight A's but never really tried).  I think this may make me a better teacher because I can better relate the struggles I went through.  In the same light, I can see how i am not striving to push for invention, as much as I am striving to create a voice. I think that invention can be created through the creation of voice, but I don't really emphasize it directly.  I think that even if Winsor's article was not the best I can see the usefulness of the invention process.

On another note, I have been working on a introduction to literature/fiction syllabus that I think I though would be easier to create in the beginning.  I have been trying to cram some of my own interests into the syllabus as an effort to create a bridge to the student in finding lit in graphic novels.  I wonder if I'm placating to my own sensibilities by doing this or expanding what literature can be?  It's something I have been struggling to figure out...

The Mud Room

So, first of all I have to say that getting back on a mud for the first time in years was an exhilarating experience.  I  just to use muds for text based computer gaming back in the day *cough*star wars RPGs.  Although this time I wasn't battling with any sand people or inspecting treasure chest it was still nice to get back on one of those things for the first time since sixth grade or so.
I digress.
The mud was an interesting experience for class today, and I think that we all utilized it differently.  Some had random outburst after being taken over by what I can only describe as pure giddiness from holding class online.  Others struggled to get in the discussions and I think the mud slid right over them burying them somewhere underneath lost trains of thought and the pace of the mud.  I was rather comfortable with the space and didn't feel that I was being overwhelmed by it, granted I have had previous usage.  I did notice that even those who expressed problems at the beginning ended up catching up and being more active nearer to the end.
The big question is-what was gathered from today's mud trial?  I don't think that this space was effective for us all.  I think some of us were more inclined to take it more serious than others, but i think that would change if the entirety of the class was held on a space like that b/c it would be only the ones wanting to get something from it.  I think those who felt more intimidated by the expeirince would probably not sign up for this type of class and even if they did their comp literacy would catch up in the environment as the semester went on.  I think there were good and bad moments within the chaos that was class today.  This space is also hard when trying to host twenty people rather than just six or so... it does create some chaos.

Berlin

This was an interesting read, in that I have been looking back at my education (undergrad v grad) classes and trying to figure out what exactly the teachers ideal approach to the class.  In trying to figure this out I was also trying to figure out which worked best for me as a student.  I found that since I come from a creative writing background as undergrad and am now doing literature in grad school I have seen most of these approaches used within TTU.

I think that as the literature courses got older (in that the one that dealt with old English, middle English,etc.) seemed to align more with the cognitive psychology rhetoric.  They seemed to be more of a survey class that showed the text and expert discussion of the text, then would build the class around these types of discussions.

My creative writing classes I guess were striving to be a social epistemic rhetorical appraoch, and despite the recent discussions in class, as an undergrad fiction CW I felt that the students that were giving me feedback were opinions that I respected and took to heart.  I may have just been in a weird group or maybe Dr. Jones facilitated it in a unique way, I'm not sure but it seemed to be less of search the Platonist truth that only the prof has.

The expressionistic coincides with my high school education, somewhat.  I feel that the power of the creative process and art was part of the AP curriculum, but at the same time it was so intermixed with formalist constructions that I have a hard time trying to label it as such.

All of this to say that I have definitely experienced a couple of these educational modes, and I really have to think that each still has its place.  I feel that certain literature benefits from a formalist/cognitive approach to be able to relate it to student ( I would still use social/cultural things as well) depending on the subject matter.  I also feel the CW classes should strive to be something that should resemble social epistemic (if the teacher can back out of the conversation).  In a straight literature course I could see using all three together to better relate literature (peer response, workshop, critical articles, open ended paper topics to emphasize student discovery...).

Sans Walls

In my last two posts I have been harking on my belief in the cultural impact of literature as something I hold in high esteem, then came Bruffee.  I had no idea that what I had thought up was so close to his theory of classes without walls.  He concentrates on the ability to bring in mew voices into the classroom through tutors, studies of culture, and society.  In this way the classroom walls are dissolved through the tutors and voices.  This is an interesting concept, but still not exactly what I was meaning by emphasizing the cultural/social/historical in literature.
I was thinking that this approach would allow for literature to achieve a broader reach and show its impact in a global sense.  The reason behind my doing this was to make it more relate-able to the students.  Sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll is an approach I like to take while referencing culture, society, and history to situate the literature while at the same time showing its context to better illuminate its content.  Bruffee was an interesting read because it showed me a new side of the idea that would allow me to better defend my approach to teaching literature.  Bringing in history, science, sociology, and other disciplines I am not only making it more relate-able but now I am breaking down the walls of the classroom (partially) as the scholar Bruffee suggest with the "conversation of mankind".  I feel smarter already.
Another reason that I felt myself aligning with was putting audience in the forefront, because it is true-you can't write for an audience if you don't know the audience.  Bringing in other elements which allow different scope with which the students to look at the literature will also allow them to situate it within the time that it was written, thus better knowing the audience for which it was originally written.  Even if the audience cannot be without question pointed to, it still starts a conversation within the students minds.  If these types of sparks can be ignited, then when talking through the required paper it is easier as an instructor to make a link between the importance of audience in their own writing since they have seen the importance of audience in what they have read for the class.  This may just be because of my minor in history or the fact that I started grad school doing both English and History, but when teachers were able to connect these dots it always made the discussion more interesting to me when I was/am in class.

I Believe

This week I tried to get down the three things that I believe in as a teacher to include into my teaching philosophy.  I have written a teaching philosophy before, but because it was for my Internship it was focused primarily on teaching film.  The three things I believe can still fit into my old teaching philosophy with very little change.

I believe the power of language can be emphasized by focusing on clarity, brevity, and sincerity in student's writing;
I believe that good literature and writing has a social and cultural component and through the exploration of these ideas through classroom discussion can make literature from all regions and eras more relate-able to the students;
I believe the the class should be flexible and broad with goals and procedures to allow students to shape discussion and feel more invested in the discussions in class, and also a broadened focus allows literature to be attacked from multiple angles.

These are my three things (as of right now) and I think that they would work for composition, literature, or film teaching philosophy.  These goals not only state my own position as a teacher but also how I align with different categories of approach.  There are some definite social epistemic and mimetic things going on within these three things as well.

Tell me what you think, did I miss some major points/are there holes/etc. 

You Can Get With This, or You Can Get With That...

I have been doing a lot of thinking on how to classify myself as a teacher into one of the four groups that Fulkerson set out in his article.  I feel that I am not one single mindset of writing instruction but rather a conglomerate of multiple.  I think the one I most align with is the social epistemic, because I find the process of peer response valuable.  I think it a good exercise for the students to go through-not only the act of writing the response but also seeing how the other students are writing.  I think students can learn more about form and style when they see how others are organizing and phrasing things in their papers, which will allow them as readers to decide what is working, what is not, and make adaptations to their own writing.  I also like some of the cognitive school of thought.  I don't know if i would go as far as to tape all the students and have them talk about their writing process, but after a paper is done I like to do a reflection which centers on process of writing the paper where they excelled/had trouble and also how they went about accomplishing what they did.  This can be useful to reorganize the material and have reflections done to share and discuss as a wrap up to tie everything together that they did in writing the paper.  I also feel that the other two models (formalist and expressive) are important as well but I would probably emphasize them less.  Attention to form is good, but I agree more with universal error approach rather than a count every error approach.  There has to be time dedicated to the formalistic apsect of the paper as well though.  The expressive is also important to build a convincing ethos and style.

In all I think that I use a bit from each, but conform to none of them completely, so I am going to call myself a mix of all.

...'cuz this is where it's at.

Clarity, Brevity, & Sincerity

Focusing on Macrorie's excerpt from "Telling Writing" and combining his ideas of composition with the ideas behind "clarity, brevity, and sincerity" can put Macrorie's perspectives in a new pragmatic light.  As a teacher if I were to implement free writing with focus as a form to promote expressive writing, I would emphasize the students to try to keep their writing clear, brief, and sincere.  I think this starts to happen when a good writing prompt that uses certain words/phrases within it to ensure expressive writing, but I feel if even if the prompt is perfect "clarity, brevity. and sincerity" as a requirement of their writing will help to avoid Engfish entirely.  I think that this works in parallel with the  two part grading system that focuses on grammar and content.  As part of the grammar component the term 'style' is often used as an umbrella term could be broken down to these three elements.  I am not trying to take the ethos training out of composition but rather have a 'style' and 'voice' component as part of the grammar rubric.  If the students are told that their writing should always consider the most succinct and clear way to phrase things it will in turn make it more sincere by removing the fluff that ultimately makes their ethos less credible to the audience.
These ideas are still being formed fully in my mind, but this parallel kept jumping out at me during Thursday's joint lecture.  I felt, even half cooked, that they could elicit some form of response on the blog, and that's what it's here for.

The Rutgers Video

The Rutgers video was an interesting watch.  I felt that it did a good job of showing us as teachers the types of challenges with teaching such a wide range of tuned in and tuned out students.  I remember that the video was brought up briefly in class, and a comment was made about having to stop watching it when they saw how the students were going out, procrastinating, and half completing assignments.  To me though that was the exact reason that I thought that the video really hit me with a reminder of the obstacles which composition teachers have to overcome.
I can say for myself that I was not always a star student and pushing myself to learn.  I felt the video at least gave a good insight into the freshman college students lives.  I have always been a firm believer of the idea the better you can understand the student, the better the student can understand you.  I am not speaking in terms of an individual student basis, but more of the entire body of the first-time-college-student-coming-from-high-school as a whole.  It has been a while ago for me, so I thought that the video was a good tool to watch as teachers in terms of relating to students, ideas for structuring lectures, and class schedule/assignment due dates (such as require them to turn in a rough draft a week or two before the paper is due could help procrastination).  What I'm trying to say is that I felt there was something to get from the video and was sad to hear that it was dismissed by part of the class.

Laudo Dissentiri ("I Praise the Dissenters")

The idea of a Composition course is a modern American course that is not taught in British or European Universities, as Horner points out in his article.  The idea for a class that is needed to ensure that all incoming students were on the same page when it comes to their ability to compose legible and organized prose, sprang forth from the Scottish and Dissenting universities of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  As Horner shows, because of the lack of religious influence on these establishments they were able to accept a broader range of students and were also able to teach these students core material, rather than the pampering practices of Oxford or Cambridge Universities that were known for doling out degrees for the British aristocracy regardless of classes completed or attended.  It is because the lack of the required oath at these universities that allowed them to accept a wide range of people from the aristocracy, middle-class, urban, or rustic communities for those who had the ability and desire to seek out further education.  This took some of the British "class-ism" out of the requirement for degrees, and was one of the first steps to equal education (unfortunately women had to wait a bit longer).  Since the 'doors to better opportunity' had been forced open at certain establishments there had to be some way to standardize and equalize the students ability to write as a tool to ensure everyone was on the same page when entering other classes.  So, the Scottish were renowned for including elements of grammar, literature, writing, belles lettres, etc. into their courses no matter the subject matter.  They knew the importance of the students' ability to clearly relate what they have learned whether it be written or oratory.  This is where the Americans break off.  The American Universities use a composition course in English as a siphon.  We siphon every student through the same composition course to ensure they everyone has the same ability to correctly iterate ideas clearly.  The ideas are the same, but instead of every course including some composition, we have an entire course dedicated to it then assume it is rote.  The reason I think that this system is still popularized in America is due to our system of education.  It traditionally is not considered as "pristine" as a European education, but we open up college to a wider range of people.  In doing so the composition course has become vital to ensure hat all students are actually at the level of composition required when they arrive at college (as we know most aren't).  I would rather have an education available to more and require an extra course than to have education for few.

What is Composition?

The idea of what composition is has been one that has caused many scholarly debates over the centuries.  Not only what it is, but also how it is applied sparked debates between fellow academics.  For this blog post, however, I wanted to steer away from what the scholars have said and give a more off the cuff idea of what composition is to me.  Composition is the study of writing well, which I realize is a broad definition but one that I feel encompasses the true application of composition in real world settings.  It is learning to write well through use of specific training ideals, such as a clear thesis/argument, organization/structure of the argument, and a convincing ethos, which can be applied directly to scholarly articles of English but also to any field which requires good writing skills in order to better convey an idea or thought.  This is the reason for such a broad definition of what composition is because it should be able to apply to all fields of study.  Composition is not something that is unique to English students alone, but something that is learned in English that is applied in all reaches of study and employment opportunities.  So, in teaching composition I do not teach strict essay only composition ideas, but the far reaching ideas that can be applied to all writing to make ideas concise and clear for anyone that reads it.  I’m sure as the semester goes on I will change or refine my thinking of composition, but in the spirit of this post I wanted to keep it to an off the top of my head definition which I can later add some scholarship to.