Please respond to one or more of the (many!) options for this week (so much to think about after class yesterday–also feel free to share any other thoughts you’ve been having about argumentative writing or things you’d like to talk about in class):
Option 1: Reflect on our discussion about “controversial” or “uncomfortable” topics in class. What strikes you as important from that discussion? What questions remain for you? How does this week’s reading help us think about approaching difficult conversations in class?
Option 2: We also raised questions about the roles of emotional and logical appeals in argumentation. How do you teach your students to evaluate evidence “logically”? How do you make place for emotion in your teaching of argument? What other questions or concerns, questions, etc. do you have about emotion and logic in argument?
Option 3: How does argumentative writing connect to other forms of writing, such as narrative and literary analysis? What ideas were raised in class and in the reading? What would you like to try in terms of connecting these genres?
Option 4: How could we use a “multiple literacies” lens to think about argument, for those of you who have taken that course? What techniques or strategies might be interesting to employ, and how could a multiple literacies lens be used to “humanize” argument?
In your response, please remember to keep in mind the rubric. A brief overview:
- Approximately 200-250 words
- Specific reference to the assigned reading.
- Description of lesson idea, activity, resource, and/or mentor text. Please include a link to the resource when possible
In my first semester of undergrad ever, at The College of Saint Rose I had 3 interactions with 3 different professors that I will likely never forget. They also are the reason I am so hesitant to leave NYC… because the way I felt after these interactions, as a young adult makes me terrified of being put in a position where I might have to explain them to my own children. And yes, I know they can happen anywhere but, I find this city to be more cautious of what they say in mixed company.
In my language and linguistics class I was asked to do a presentation on Ebonics since I speak it and I was asked to ensure that in my presentation on Ebonics that I made sure to include why Ebonics should be considered a legitimate dialect of English. There were 2 problems here, first while I used slang, I certainly don’t and probably never have spoken Ebonics. And second, why was it left to me to argue the validity of a dialect of English when I didn’t and don’t believe that there should even be a such thing as SAE.
That professor’s assumption that my skin tone automatically made me a member of the group that spoke in this particular dialect was not only out of line, it told me, within the first week of class that this professor had already had a narrative of my life and even my abilities or lack thereof in her mind. I would need to work twice as hard if not more than my white counterparts to prove that I had an at least adequate gasp of “SAE” and could perform at the same level as all of the other college freshman. The problem with most of the argumentative prompts “created” by many of the teachers I have come across in my life is simple, the premise is wrong. The world is black and white with millions of shades of gray in between. Our discussions, even academic ones should allow space for that as well.
After our discussion about uncomfortable topics in class, I find myself still thinking about the question Joe and I adapted for Ameila and Marina’s facilitation: who should be responsible for security at your school? As opposed to questions that other groups worked on, this one seemed much more intense (yet important) to discuss with students. So often we’re focusing on our novel units and on the Regents that issues that directly affect our students go undiscussed. Like Allison mentioned last class, how do we navigate difficult conversations that get more complicated when they include students’ expectations of us? When my school got a security guard for the first time at the beginning of this school year, it brought up a lot of tension. After a serious incident in the previous school year, current students accepted the presence of a guard but still felt unsure about him as he made his rounds, looking into classrooms throughout the day. However, graduates returning to the school for initial college advice or help with papers began to complain that the new person didn’t simply recognize their face and allow them in. Graduates felt that the need for them to show ID, sign in, and possibly have their bags searched was destroying the school’s culture, which prides itself on an “everyone knows your name” approach.
For current students, however, I do think that, in some cases, student-written texts can give students a voice and encourage them to spark change (Kissel, Whittingham, Laman, & Miller, 2019). My small attempt to make the security guard feel welcome and to not feel as much of a stranger to the students was to include an interview with him in our school newspaper. The article was actually very successful, in which students learned that our security guard was the father of a graduate from our school and a police officer who saved a dog from a subway train, as well as shared his own ideas about the school implementing a security guard and why it’s important. After publication, I noticed that students felt more comfortable to talk with him in the morning, wave to him when he popped into class, and cheer him on during faculty-student events. Overall, with issues like security, I would worry about administration not approving of hard-hitting writing projects without a clear connection to a Regents passage. How can we talk about issues in our school without connecting the issue directly to our school? How do we remain unbiased in the classroom while navigating a class discussion about a topic as serious as security? Does the conversation have to be serious– and if so, how do we avoid our students becoming more cynical or fearful, rather than motivated?
An idea raised in last week’s class discussion was that literary analysis and argumentative writing (or perhaps, all forms of writing) can be perceived as almost one and the same. In other words, everyone draws from their personal experiences and beliefs to make an analysis. We are always making a claim for something, even in literary analysis, by using techniques of close reading to elicit meaning. In the student facilitation led by Amelia and Marina as well as the reading “Student Activists and Authors,” (2019) the utilization of the classical, but relevant rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos were encouraged in argumentative writing. The authors noted that historical speeches, which have utilized these modes of persuasion, have always had an impact within the context of their times to evoke compassion, activity, and change among its audiences. I find that in literary analysis, we adopt similar writing strategy frameworks (though perhaps we are least likely to evoke pathos in formal literary analysis) in our search for meaning.
Though we may not necessarily use this exact trio for every writing assignment, the meaning we most often generate from close readings are meanings which are most often closest to our senses of truth. The student activists of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School used their meaningful experiences to create not only an argument, but a dialogue of truth in which to elicit change in the world. These attempts brought forth widespread advocacy, and this advocacy gave way to critical engagement reflected in larger movements ultimately bred from the classroom. I think in many of our readings such as “Momentos de Cambio” (2016) we can use these techniques to create similar kinds of societal impact prompted by personal experience or memoirs. Regarding a “moment of change” in literary analysis or memoirs is reflecting on a kind of argument made from our observations and can be applied to our own lives. Using these techniques, we can make attempts to have these experiences reflect on larger issues. To connect these genres, I think ultimately, we must regard the meaning we wish to create and understand that we can and do approach writing with our personal beliefs. Though techniques may be differ between genres, the purpose remains the same: we are always trying to make a point by telling a story.
After our discussion in class revolving around “controversial” or “uncomfortable” topics within the classroom, I could not help but think about the topics that my own students have been introduced to or have written about. Most of these topics have always been on the ‘safe’ side, in terms of students not having a huge say on whether they disagree or agree on particular topics because it was not of interest to them. Students have been taught to build stamina on reading or writing about topics that may not be of interest to them, in order to receive a high score on a standardized test. When a guest speaker came into my classroom to discuss the expectations from high school students, one of the topics she discussed was how students have to build stamina on reading and writing about topics that may not be of interest to them, since those skills will prepare them for the Regents examination. This week’s class discussion only build on that idea of bringing ‘”controversial” topics within the classroom, in order to truly hear the voices of our students and have them advocate for issues that are prevalent in their day to day lives. When I do incorporate relevant issues into my lessons, my students are so much more engaged and I am able to hear from students that I would not hear from on a daily basis. My biggest concern for these topics would be on how I would bring them into the classroom with approval from my administration.
This week’s reading allowed me to recognize how impactful student voices can be, especially in terms of the way they were used within this article after an impactful and devastating school shooting. I remember seeing videos of Amanda Gonzalez’s speeches and getting goosebumps from how impactful her words were on a topic that was so close to her heart. Simultaneously, I remember seeing the amount of backlash she was receiving because she was so young and was receiving so much attention for her words. Within the article, it states “As a high school student, González knows her youth might be used as a tool to undermine her credibility. In anticipation, she uses both ethos (establishing credibility) and logos (appealing to logic) as she incorporates facts and statistics into her speech”. (Kissel, Whittingham, Laman, & Miller, 2019) All three of these ethical appeals are ones that Amelia and I mentioned within class to demonstrate ways to humanize argumentative writing. Bringing in these ethical appeals, as well as “controversial” topics has always been something that I wanted to incorporate within my classroom, and our discussion from last week, as well as this week’s reading has strengthened that for me. I feel that we limit our students’ voice a lot in the classroom, especially within my school because of the lack of creativity within our curriculum, and ultimately it is making them feel like their voices do not matter.
As teachers, we are often tasked with teaching literature that is old and that our students can’t relate to ie: The Crucible, To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Great Gatsby, etc. I was surprised to learn that novels I couldn’t relate to in the late 1980s are still the central texts we are using. Rather than relying on the text to engage students, my struggle is to find ways to make these relevant to students through secondary texts. There is a push in secondary education for more non-fiction so these supplemental texts often become more focal to the unit.
When I consider texts, I look for articles about people or events that my students can relate to. When we were reading The Crucible, I incorporated articles and videos about the Slenderman murder to try to explain mass hysteria and the girls’ reactions to Abigail. I have not, however, used student generated work.
The article about the Stoneman-Douglas student’s delivery of their message to the world via video, traditional newspapers and Twitter provides students with a roadmap for activism through self expression. From Emma González’s speech to Christine Yared’s NY Times article to David Hogg’s Twitter defense, the students employ rhetorical devices and other language and persuasive skills that our students can learn from. It is also powerful for them to see people their age opening a dialogue with the world in order to create change.
I often ask my students to question the world we live in and who benefits from social structures as they exist today. Many of them are examples of the people that are impacted negatively by political decisions like tax cuts for the wealthy or the appointment of people like Betsy DeVos. I would estimate only 15-20% of my students are openly concerned with current events. I try to bring activists like Greta Thunberg into lessons for my students that are passionate about climate change. The ones that care are enthusiastic to share their passion with the class. I will definitely add the Stoneman Douglas activists to my repertoire!
(SIDE NOTE: I asked my freshman students if they were concerned that a mass shooting at Bryant High School. One student said it would never happen because we were protected by the houses next door.)
When I think of humanizing an argument I think of teaching it in such a way that it is not only relatable but tangible for our students, they have some sort of experience with and a vested interest in. I have, this past year, taken on teaching current events in my middle school and found it necessary to discuss issues that had a direct impact on the children I taught like, using the N word or the impact of social media on their lives. I also sought to engage them, (when the decision was being made) in discussing the impact of open campus lunch on a student body. In my practice, pairing texts (a newspaper article or a poem alongside a longer work). I often did it with the intention of presenting multiple points of view on a topic (i.e. the impact of sugar production on the expansion of the transatlantic slave trade) however, Polleck’s article caused me to begin thinking again about the benefits of inter-curricular planning which according to the Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College has the benefits of helping students to recognize bias, increase critical thinking ability, tolerate ambiguity and, acknowledge and appreciate ethical concerns brought up in their studies (2019).
In thinking again about working to help students develop their ability to select textual evidence in a text as I was reading the article written by Sherry and Lawrence, I found myself reflecting on my own struggle with selecting quotes to support their arguments in writing. I have given some thought to having students work to identify the “complicated” or hard to grasp sentences in their assigned readings and having them work to identify (as Polleck did) the main idea of the work, how that “complicated” sentence works to support the main idea and what the implications of the idea presented in that sentence are. I am not sure if that would help or further confuse students but it is something I am still turning over in my mind. I am interested in the game Quandary and may very well make time to play it this summer. I honestly want to know how it might compare to my recollection of the Oregon Trail game I enjoyed playing in school.
Source: Why Teach with an Interdisciplinary Approach? (2019, January 29). Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/econ/interdisciplinary/why.html
Following our discussion about bringing up uncomfortable topics in the classroom, I found myself thinking about student voice and how these topics are not just prompts for discussion but address the realities that many of us face. It is important to discuss these topics as opposed to ignoring them. I admit that this is something that I still need to work on. It can be difficult to bring in difficult topics because you don’t know what reactions your students will have or if you can handle those reactions. Regardless, our students have opinions on these controversial topics such as, gun control, climate change, and security in schools to name a few, and their voices matter. Their thoughts are valid and as teachers we should urge them to use their voices for change. This process begins with us. We need to think about how we can incorporate these uncomfortable topics into our classrooms- in discussions, writing assignments, journals, projects etc. After reading the article about the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas, I was amazed at their courage as well as their power to enact change. As their teachers, we should emphasize to students that they should be proud of what they believe in and that their ideas and thoughts are important. That as a community of young people, in the classroom, in a school, and around the world, they are powerful and can change the world we live in. As it states in the article, “The use of student-authored texts as mentor texts demonstrates the use of “old tricks” (the rhetorical devices taught) with “new tools” (e.g., the use of Twitter as a communicative platform and the use of YouTube to reach national and international audiences). But perhaps more importantly, we believe that the incorporation of student expression communicates a message to other young people: “We see you.” (2019) I found this particular quote to be important because it shows that students can use social media and technologies that they are familiar with to spread a message to masses of people. As well, the accessibility of technology allows students from all parts of the world to connect and contribute to the same conversation.
The Article “Student Activists and Authors: Contemporary Youth Voices as Classroom Texts” makes me reevaluate what speeches and argument writing I choose to teach and which ones I negate. The article raises a great question: If speeches by Martin Luther King, Sojourner Truth and Abraham Lincoln are popularly taught why aren’t student written, modern and relevant examples such as the examples from the gun control debate of David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez. Through reading, I realized that these narratives are EXACTLY what I want students to read when I teach the Government and Civics unit in my Humanities class.
Further, reading these narratives using the lens of argument encourages students to take risks and become authors in their own activism and avoids the age-old debate of fearing controversial issues and adding teacher opinion. In using this lens, I could focus on rhetoric as opposed to my personal beliefs and the beliefs of my students. By evaluating the form as opposed to the validity of the topic, students learn about both.
This resource was very valuable to me because I am already envisioning how I can harness the voices of students who are already changing society to enable my students to create change with their voices.
However, I do try to teach argument using the rhetorical appeals. I have a series of very successful lessons using commercials and advertising images to interpret these appeals before moving to written arguments (almost always harder for students to detect). I use editorials and opinion articles from newspapers and blogs as a transition point between visual uses of ethos, pathos, and logos and the more “buried” uses of them in many texts. Opinion pieces are more overt, by design.
I haven’t done this yet, but I think I should work it into my curriculum: logical fallacies. If students don’t understand the shortcuts their brains take in interpreting the way that the world works, they may not understand the way that their own writing will impact their readers. Understanding things like confirmation bias and ad hominem attacks will help them craft more poignant arguments, much like the students in Parkland (Kissel). I also am interested in the prospect of using persuasive writing directed at the NYS Board of Regents to modify the expectations of the argument essay and bring the standardized into the realm of the authentic as much as possible.
The article “Student Activists and Authors: Contemporary Youth Voices as Classroom Texts” was something that I found to be profoundly interesting, because when I teach argumentative writing I always incorporate a mini-lesson/unit session on rhetorical devices in persuasive speeches and speaking. I do find that far too often in academia, we correlate argumentative writing with just the mundane 5-paragraph essay that is much like the ones given on the Regents and other state exams. In reality, speeches and PSA’s are just as much argumentative and persuasive writing/speaking as any other form of argumentative writing.
Therefore, I think that teaching ethos, pathos, logos (and the others, such as anaphora, paralipsis) is just as important as teaching them claim and counter-claim. When it comes to the sensitive and important topics that we so often wish to discuss and humanize with students, it’s imperative that we incorporate not only secondary sources that are famous for being historically relevant, but those that are current and relevant to our students today.
The article, focusing on the Parkland students and activists, to me is relevant to all students and a great example of persuasive and argumentative writing and speaking. The use of ethos, pathos, and logos in several forms is incredibly eye-opening and a great way to look and “step in” to argumentative writing for our students.
I think that putting emotion and logic into context for our students will only help them become better at persuasive writing and speaking, and it’s important to find source texts to pair with these concepts. For example, in “To Kill A Mockingbird,” we analyzed Atticus’ closing argument in Chapter 20 using ethos, pathos, and logos. Students were to dissect the speech to find which rhetorical devices were present and which made his argument the strongest. This helps them understand that when doing their own argumentative writing, using these devices can also help to get their point across and strengthen their own writing (and speeches, because that’s part of our unit, as well).
I am a huge proponent of having uncomfortable discussions in class. The reason I care so much about having intellectual diversity in the classrooms is because we MUST have our student’s way of thinking. A slow and moderate progression through our society has created so many wonderful outcomes that our society as a whole has come to embrace including but certainly not limited to women and minority’s right to vote, laws protecting against discrimination in schools and in the work place, and free and accommodating public education to all students despite any disabling factors.
Our students must grow out of their comfort zones and avoid being the Bobby Bucher of our generation. I see great danger in having my students create a “hive mind” of appropriate and comfortable speech in which they can all agree. As an educator, I am dedicated to challenging the “popular perspective” that seems to rally students behind ideas that eventually lead to the breakdown of honesty, discussion, and thought. The other side of the argument is so essential to every classroom discussion in my opinion, and I would never bring up an uncomfortable topic without discussing both sides. Pushback on one-sided discussions is something I will always do to ensure that those silent students in my class feel that they have a voice as well and their opinions are valid, respected and relevant.
New ideas, even uncomfortable ones, should always have a home in our classrooms to allow our students to explore and evolve. Any time my views are challenged, I remember I would rather be wrong once today than a thousand days in the future, which is the unintended consequence of being close minded and not engaging with uncomfortable topics.
I believe we should be broachion these topics in our classes. While yes, it is easy foor things to get out of hand with our kids since they don;t have filters, they should be given the space to express thweweir thoughts freely. Many times already they feel as if their voices don’t matter in school. A lot of the topics wthat would possibly unterest them is usually overlooked and insteead they are forced to discuss things of little interest to them. By incorporating more relevant topics, we would be suprised by what studentas prodice, so long as it is in a controlled envirreonmennt and not students screaming insults at each other. Though that is entertaining. The article does male mention o this fact. Allowing students to a voice piece for these issues rather than the passangers would help boost their confidence. (Kissel 76). One of the more interesting startegies used was having students analyze an argumentative speech written by a student This caught my eye because most times students are told to read an article by so old person who discusses something they have no interest in. It was faacinating to see how they used an article written by a student and broke down its elements. Also, the topic was school shooting, hich is something very releveant that these students can relate to (Kissel 77-78).
Argumentative writing connects to narrative and literary analysis rather seamlessly, especially considering that many of the elements in narrative writing and literary analysis overlap into argumentative pieces. One of the way’s that I taught students to write a research paper is to have them think about the way that they would write a narrative, specifically on how they plan to tell their reader a story that will both engage and intrigue the reader. Being able to do these two things in a writing assignment are key in an argumentative piece that is attempting to convince the reader to side with the writers position and ideas. At the same time, students need to be able to do analyze specific pieces of evidence that support their claim that is meant to serve as an answer to their research question. This is an integral part of inquiry based work which is an essential element to argumentative writing and literary analysis since a writer must be able to both explain and prove how a piece of evidence they chose to use serves to support their claim and their understanding of the article/text that they took the evidence from.
This goes beyond the CER method that many teachers use to teach argumentative writing to their students. When I started the research unit with my students, many of them weren’t able to properly analyze strong textual evidence without starting off a sentence with, “In the text, it states,” which is a lazy way to get the reader to focus in on a crucial part of the hard work that students committed to. At the same time, they struggled with really diving deep into what their piece of evidence meant within the context of their work, let alone frame it in a useful way that supported their claim. It was important for me to help students develop the skills to write interesting and engaging papers that not only informed the reader of their chosen topic, but also to convey a story that would have the reader thinking about what they just read.
I think that controversial or uncomfortable questions/conversations are essential for learning, especially in and ELA classroom. In ELA, we have a particular relation to curriculum and curriculum development. We don’t necessarily teach content. We teach skills related to broader essential questions. In its very essence, ELA is rooted in social issues and questions about these issues. This flexibility in the curriculum often gives us the ability to integrate material and ask questions that may not be appropriate in other classes. I firmly believe that students need to confront uncomfortable topics about race, income, educational inequality, and other critical social issues to grow not only as writers but as people. In the article “Using Nonfiction to Advocate for Change” by Jody Polleck, she states that, “Adding nonfiction texts to my classroom was a critical experience in that students could hear and live vicariously through a variety of narratives with multiple voices, perspectives, and histories. Not only did students learn to appreciate and honor a diversity of genres and texts, but they also analyzed how authors use their writing as a way to move people, as a way to empower others to either not repeat history or to change the ways in which they interact with others within their communities.” Here she emphasizes the power we have in ELA to expose students to experiences they may be unfamiliar with. A student may never get the chance to travel to a particular place or meet a specific type of person, but nonfiction has the power to create that exposure right in the classroom. However, this exposure to people and ideas you are unfamiliar with will inevitably lead to controversial questions and uncomfortable conversations. But these are necessary. If you go to the gym to get stronger, you will feel discomfort. You will have to push yourself in the moment to finish what you started. You’ll even be sore the next day. However, this discomfort is necessary and unavoidable if you wish to grow stronger. This same thing happens when we are learning about our self as a person. If you want to grow, you need to deal with and fight through some discomfort.
Using Student voices as mentor texts is an approach I have been experimenting with this year. So much research suggests that in order for students to engage with texts requires culturally accessible texts (Hooper 2017), but culture is not just defined by ethnicity and linguistic style—while this is an important part to culturally accessible texts, it is not the end all be all. Hooper (2017) research suggests that students of all backgrounds can connect with texts based on universal stories. Student voices have been my approach in unit two as we study gender inequality. Two articles that students resonate with: Why I’m a teenage feminist and Emma Watson’s address to the U.N. Specifically, students resonated with this due to the young authorship of the writers. I want to take that a step further next year; Kissel, et. al (2019) posits “Because these texts provide an opportunity for conversations about relevant, pressing social issues, centering student authored texts in classrooms allows teachers to facilitate meaningful dialogue within the context of writing instruction.” A unit focused on activism should speak to young people fighting for these issues. We spoke a lot about approaching uncomfortable topics in the classroom; I’m of the position that teachers need to allow this discourse to occur, and also realize their position in the classroom. I have spoken about being an “outsider” in my classroom and try not to overstep on students positions. Argument is very rarely logical in my opinion, many times passion and emotion drives argument—the challenge becomes trying to incorporate logic into the points students feel so strongly about.
Why I’m a teenage feminist: https://www.latimes.com/local/education/community/la-me-why-i-m-a-teenage-feminist-20160126-story.html
Emma Watson addresses the U.N. : https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too
Merging options one through three together, what I still struggle with in terms of argumentative writing includes meshing emotion and logic together, to replicate an “argument,” which does not force students into one corner. The most recent adaptation I have made for widening this spectrum includes using the “four corners” protocol, where I read students a statement, and they pick a physical position in the classroom that mirrors their opinion on the statement (their options were strongly agree, agree, strongly disagree, and disagree). Reflecting on the provided readings, I value op-ed writing as pathos from “Student Activists and Authors: Contemporary Youth Voices as Classroom Texts,” and “The use of student-authored texts as mentor texts…” within the classroom for argument. This is something I feel I can tie to narrative and literary analysis, along with evaluating both emotional and logical appeals in arguments–as having students write an op-ed to demonstrate their stance on a topic brings out their emotional standpoint on an issue, while allowing some form of narrative writing. Having students later return to their “op-ed,” evaluating what they wrote and color coding their emotional appeal from their logical appeal provides them with a visual example of the types of arguments. From here, I would have students decide which argument they feel holds more power, a question which I may not have the answer to, as some may feel their emotional standpoint holds more value, whereas others may feel logic is the strongest support. Nevertheless, the most helpful tool I will be taking from argumentative writing is using student voice as the guiding factor through my lesson.