Throughout this essay Tannen critiques the "debate" rhetoric we often rely on in college classrooms. What is wrong with this, according to Tannen?
Tannen feels that the debate system puts more emphasis on winning an argument instead of learning information. Tannen also feels that this puts people who do not have an advaserial style naturally at a disadvantage in school. With most classes giving up to 10% of their grade based on participation, its gives advantage to those who are louder and more noticeable. It seems pretty clear that Tannen is not a big fan of the Socratic Method.
How does Tannen suggest we move beyond this argument culture?
Tannen suggests that we overcome our desire to think in twos. Instead of talking about “both sides” of an issue, we should look at ALL sides of an issue. She also feels that debate should not be glorified as something more important than the issues being discussed.
Does Tannen move beyond simply arguing a point in this essay and engage in a higher order of critical thinking?
I think she does a good job of laying out the history of confrontational learning and she does in fact have some reasonable points for change. What I would of liked to see is more on the Asian method of harmony. It is like she spent so much time explaining the way she disagrees with, but only a page on her ideas for change. I think more history on cultures that adopt more of her style would have been beneficial for her argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was thinking the same thing when I read this. The author is so concerned with the way that things are, but she doesn't give much advice to fix them. When I read Cheli's post and one of her questions was "How does Tannen suggest we move beyond this argument culture?" I was expecting the author to provide a lot of solutions just because of Chelsi's question. However, I was disappointed when Tannen didn't offer much.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of the section regarding men and women responses to an essay. I couldn't help but notice how Mike states what he agrees and disagrees with so clearly. ha Ha his last paragraph, "I think she does a good job of laying out the history of confrontational learning and she does in fact have some reasonable points for change. What I would of liked to see is more on the Asian method of harmony. It is like she spent so much time explaining the way she disagrees with, but only a page on her ideas for change. I think more history on cultures that adopt more of her style would have been beneficial for her argument. " This is perfect to explain how men are so straight forward when criticizing an author. Nice work, you were a perfect example Mike! See ya in GEO!
ReplyDeleteVery nice! Very informative and easy to read! Great, great, great job!
ReplyDelete