In
society today there is a huge construct about argument. To understand this you
first have to understand what a construct is. A construct is a misconception
about a certain topic. The construct held about argument is that all arguments
are negative; there is nothing to gain from arguments except for an angered
release. This is a large misconception. Arguments should be viewed more as a
debate; a conversation with sides, where each side is explaining their point.
You see this way there is no negatives, and you can also now see that each
argument has the potential to last forever, always being added to. Through research and writing it can be
proven that arguments are not negative, but informative, helpful conversations.
The
article “Argument as Conversation” by Stuart Greene, this construct is
explained and put into new light perfectly. Greene argues that arguments are
more scholarly than people tend to believe. He explains arguments as
conversations that need to be entered into with background knowledge on the
subject and once in the conversation a person can debate and attempt to change
other participants’ minds on the subject.
In
his article “Vocabulary of Comics”, Scott McCloud attempts to prove that most
things people see are in fact icons; things that represent an actual
object. This article is perfect
for helping to see past the construct of argument being negative. People see arguments as something that
they are not, negative and violent. What they are actually seeing is the word
argument and the negative connotation
that comes with that word. The argument itself is neither negative nor violent,
but helpful and scholarly.
In
his article, “Argument Structure: Representation and Theory”, James Freeman
explains the logic and point behind arguments. Freeman states that the point of
argument is to draw conclusions about problems based on facts. He then explains
the logic being arguments. This article as a whole is all about how arguments
are a scholarly method of proving points. This, again, is helping to disprove
the idea of arguments being negative.
Caroline
Park, Cheryl Kier, and Kam Jugdev conducted a study using debate (argument) as
a teaching strategy, and published their findings in the paper “Debate as a
Teaching Strategy in Online Education: A Case Study”. They attempted to prove
that arguing is a good form of education by conducting a case study. They came
to the conclusion that arguing was a useful method of learning/teaching, once
again fighting the construct as arguing as negative.
In
David Jonassen and Bosung Kim’s article “Arguing to Learn and Learning to
Argue: Design Justifications and Guidelines”, Jonassen and Kim explain that “learning
requires deep engagement with ideas.” They go on to show how arguing encourages
this deep engagement, and also explain how to argue. This helps to justify that
argument is a positive thing that helps arguers learn and come to a conclusion
about a topic.
Hi Cy,
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good start. I like how clearly you set up the construct we're dealing with here and how you contrast that with your own thinking about what argument is/how it should be thought of and taught. One thing you might consider doing is showing some examples of how argument is viewed negatively. You could, for instance, talk about some of the language used in mainstream media to talk about argument to do this. I also like how your bring in various research on how we can expand out notions of what argument is. You've got some good sources here. But what I want you to do more of is make it more of a conversation. How are these sources talking to each other? See if you can transition between each of them by making connections and noting differences rather than this very repetitive introduction of each separately. You're in pretty good shape here. You've got a good "frame" as Greene would say. Good work. Keep it up