Bibliographic Bloggery

A bibliographic Network for Arguing Differently:

Weston, Anthony. A Rulebook for Arguments 3^rd Ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. 2000. Print.

I started with Anthony Weston. My first experience with the formulization of argument was grad school at the University of Minnesota Duluth. The WPA
there trained me, gave me her syllabus, and mentored me through what was, like many of my classmates, my first teaching experience. Even though this is
a slim volume, it established vocabulary that helped me begin to teaching what I always had known implicitly. We also read…

Fulkerson, Richard. Teaching the Argument in Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1996. Print.

…which talked a lot about something called the Toulmin Model. I had never heard of the Toulmin model, but for some reason, Fulkerson’s examples, his
methods, and his theory made sense to me. It was as if I had done all that before. I never figured it out (that his was the theory upon which most
beginning-level argumentation is based), and should have read…

Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1958. Print
.

…right away. But I usually do things the hard way, and here I am, 5+ grad school semesters later and finally getting ready to read something by him.
Maybe it’s good that I waited so long. I suppose I prescribe to the Cognitivist Theories of development. Chances are, if I would have picked up
something like heavy Argumentation theory 3 years ago, my head would have exploded. It’s taken a long journey of reading, writing, and insomnia-ing to
get me to the stage I am now. Think I’m ready? Um, Dr. Piaget. Any thoughts?

Piaget, Jean. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International UP. 1952. Print.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about Composition theory more closely. I’m certainly interested in the Psychology involved with the teaching of Composition
( my Master’s thesis was on Motivation in the Beginning Writer; see Svinicki, Marilla. Learning and Motivation in the Postsecodary Classroom. Indianapolis: Anker. 2004. Print.), but thanks in part to
Donna, I’ve been trying my best to reexamine what it means to teach, study, and think about Composition. These are some of my favorite works that I
read at her suggestion…

Micciche, Laura R. “Making a Case for Rhetorical Grammar.” CCC 55.4 (2004): 716-737. JSTOR. 14 Feb. 2011. Web.
[Micciche argues for grammar instruction in the FYC classroom. This was one of the first reasonable calls for grammar in the writing classroom I’ve
read. Rhetorical grammar, as she calls it, benefits the writer when deployed usefully, and impedes it otherwise. ]

Sirc, Geoffery. “Box Logic.” Writing New Media Ed. Anne Wysocki. 113-148. Logan, UT: Utah State UP. 2004. Print.
[This article explores why and how we construct writing in the classroom. Sirc implores his reader to utilize non-traditional methods for invention in
writing. One of Sirc’s activities has his reader fill a box with random stuff collected from around the city. Very interesting reading, I must say.]

Elbow, Peter. “The Music of Form.” CCC 57.4 (2006): 620-666. CCC Online Archive. 14 Feb. 2011. Web.


Kroll, Barry. “Arguing With Adversaries: Aikido, Rhetoric, and the Art of Peace.” CCC 59.3 (2008): 451-472. CCC Online Archive. 14
Feb. 2011. Web.

[Kroll’s article physically represents the space of argument. Thinking about how a phase of argumentation might look physically enacted made me see the
entire idea of argumentation in a different light. Reading this piece after reading Kroll, Barry. “Arguing Differently.” Pedagogy 5.1 (2005): 37-60. Project Muse. 14 Feb. 2011. Web. increased my ability to picture
what he was talking about in more tactile ways. I’ll never forget the tankan, turning out in order to sidestep your opponent’s force, in act or
in metaphor.]

Boice. Robert. How Writers Journey to Comfort and Fluency: A Psychological Adventure. Westport, CT: Praeger. 1994. Print.
[This doesn’t have as much to do with Composition theory, but Boice’s book has been instrumental to my own progress as a writer, and to my
understanding of Donna’s pedagogy. Boice offers his program for becoming a more comfortable, fluent writer by avoiding many of the pitfalls that beset
writers of all levels. The ‘binge’ method is one that all writers can related to (at least I hope I’m not the only one), yet is cautioned by Boice as
one of the most damaging practices a writer can undertake. Kathy and Hailey were talking about a resource they had both read that sounded something
like this. If you read this far through this ‘network’ could you please comment and let me know who it was. KThanks.]

A reader on the Blogora recently suggested that I read….


Haynes, Cynthia. “Writing Offshore: The Disappearing Coastline of Composition Theory.” Journal of Advanced Composition 23.4 (2003): 667-724. British Library Direct. 14 Feb. 2011. Web.



… which is extremely pertinent to both my interests in Composition theory and the assumptions this course holds on argumentation. Haynes goes to great
lengths to describe the ‘ground’ that Composition is built on. She argues, in various ways (some more coherent than others, some less philosophical
than others), that argumentation provides the basis of most instructors’ pedagogies (mine included). She cites an Architecture theorist and says
something like, ‘what’s the point of taking the time and energy to put gold leafing on a building that you know has a rotten foundation?’ The metaphor
works (for Haynes as well as) for this class. If, like Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture . New York: Ballantine Books. 1999. says,
our culture is being divided, trashed, and irrevocably changed by our twisted approach to argument, perhaps the first place we need to alter our
approach (as teachers of writing) is in the FYC classroom. Haynes argues that we should set sail from the shores of argumentation, and set our own
‘quaquaversial omnidirectional trajectory’ out into the wild blue yonder that is the unknown of Composition theory. Can we take this ultimate risk and
throw argumentation to the wind? Or should we do as Kroll says, and begin to Argue Differently?

Bibliographic Network of Argumentation

A Bibliographic Network of Argumentation

When I started formally practicing debate as a policy debater I didn’t sit down with a reference book of how to argue and debate, instead I was thrown into the activity.

http://cedadebate.org/

CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) centers around formal argument procedures that stem from the enthymematic model of argument (Aristotle), which is the: claim, reason, mental connection of argument; as well as a similar Toulmin model which is: claim, data, warrant, qualifier, reservation, & backing; and finally the protagorean model of argument(stemming from Protagoras), which is the basis of our judicial system both A and B present their cases to a judge.

Corcoran, J. M., Nelson, M., & Perella, J. (Eds). (2000). Critical Thinking Through Debate. Dubuque, Iowa:

Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

As a debater from a small program, I didn’t have the resources that other schools had- including a stable coach. Because of this I had to find ways to compete in the activity which is dominated by evidence, research, and arguments. To do so, I typically engaged in critical debate where I would directly engage the other team by deconstructing what they had presented in order to reach better more productive conclusions to the proposed plan, instead of debating multiple off case arguments. I can’t remember who my main authors were, besides Foucault, but I do remember my style was less is more. I wanted to talk about what people were presenting, instead of going into off topic debates where I would most certainly lose because I didn’t have the resources to keep up with off topic research.

Here is where I would list some critical theorists who I used in debate.

When I went to grad school I took a class that was centered on how to direct a forensics program. In this seminar we focused on two core readings by Willard and Freire. Willard's approach to argumentation is very traditional in that it reinforces evidence, claim, warrant. However, it does, unlike some of the traditional practices of debate, allow room for collaboration and a dialogic approach. I am suggesting that instead of being solely based on a win lose scenario, there is room for dialogic argument, which is argument that builds of the other, understanding, and common ground. In fact, this book, although it is traditional debate theory, reminds me that traditional debate theory isn’t solely about the win or lose, instead it is grounded in the idea that argumentation can be used to find the best possible solution to a problem. Now, Freire offered something that stems from the dialogic values of some argumentation theories, which is the idea that we need to not dominate others with what we think, but co-create a safe environment where differing ideas and thoughts can be present. Participating in an environment that is co-constructive acknowledges that everyone has ideas that can help to create knowledges and solutions to problems. This is antithetical to argumentation perspectives that suggest there is a winner and loser, or that there is a right or a wrong, or that some voices should be heard more than others, or that we have a right to tell people what and how things should be, etc. Some of the ideas that Freire contributes most to argumentation theory, and particularly arguing differently, are the ideas of compassion & empathy for those who you are engaging with, listening, asking questions, helping to create supportive environments for growth, etc.

Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc.

Willard, C. A. (1989). A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press

In general, although Tannen shows us that argument culture has its disadvantages, and academic debate certainly has its disadvantages, along with the suggestion that we all probably see (at times) that our own styles or performances of debate and argumentation have disadvantages what I would like to focus on in conclusion to networking my own sources of argumentation lessons and experiences is that there is potential for argument to be productive, educational, collaborative, and even dialogic.