Sunday, February 22, 2009

Conlfict in the Classroom? Bring It On!

I agree with what Graff has to say about a lot of things. He seems to make a lot of sense in his discussion of composition and education.
His views on conflict, and discussion over curriculum were particularly interesting for me. I think that it makes a lot sense to use conflict over a particular novel or subject being taught in order to engage students in the material. Students enjoy disagreeing, so what better way to get them involved than by giving them something to disagree with. If a teacher can get a group of students to become engage in an on-going discussion over the merits of a particular work, or its value to them in the future, then I think that those students are much more likely to stay engaged. Scott talked about using conflict as a catalyst for teaching, which makes sense. The students need some way to approach the material, and a conflict is one way they can do this. This takes a lot of confidence in the teacher though. The teacher has to be willing to bring conflict into the classroom. For some, this is a pretty intimidating idea. It requires the teacher to be prepared to defend the choices she is making in class and support these choices. It also means that you will be creating a group of students who will begin to question what you are doing more frequently. This is one of the most important lessons we can teach students. They need to begin to question. They need to have knowledge of all sides in a debate, before they can begin to understand it.
This leads right into another point that Scott made on behalf of Graff. Graff’s claim that argumentation is the basis for all fields really made sense as well. I think that in everything that we do, academically, socially, professionally, etc., we are forming some argument. When are constantly trying to present a point to someone else in the hopes that they will agree with it and support us. If we lack the skills to form an argument, we are going to be crippled in nearly all aspects of our lives. We have to be able to pass this information along to students. They need to be able to make a claim, support it, and the revise their claim if needed. This seems simple enough, but it is one of the most difficult things for students to understand. They grow up listening to poor arguments from adults, “Because I said so,” and they never see a need to improve their own argumentation skills. By giving students a chance to form arguments and debate an issue in a safe and controlled environment like the classroom, we provide them with the opportunities that they need to develop their own skills of discussion and argumentation. They need to be able to argue logically and civilly in order to fully interact with the world.

1 comment:

  1. "By giving students a chance to form arguments and debate an issue in a safe and controlled environment like the classroom, we provide them with the opportunities that they need to develop their own skills of discussion and argumentation. They need to be able to argue logically and civilly in order to fully interact with the world."

    Wow. start the comment with a big old quote. But you said it SO well. This is one of Graff's central points about argumentation and clarity of communication: it prepares students "logically and civilly" interact in the world at large.

    Some of his detractors argue that Graff's view of academia and his view of the purposes of writing are two limited, but what he's really going for is the teaching of dialogic communication, in a clear well backed rhetorical stance that will allow for a more intelligent and beneficial civic dialogue. Literally, he wants to prepare students to "fully interact with the world" in an engaged, critical fashion.

    ReplyDelete