In order to get my students in the necessary mind frame for crafting an argumentative paper (their final), I had them debate last week. The debates also allowed me to keep from moving forward since Monday classes were canceled due to it being Chinese Labor Day. I had both classes address the same topics, the death penalty and the effectiveness of college entrance examinations.
Overall, the debates went well. Everyone had the opportunity to speak, remained respectful and presented his or her opinions clearly. For capital punishment, all the classic arguments were debated, including the value of life, governmental costs and whether criminals can be rehabilitated. Once the discussion was exhausted, we moved on to the second topic, which, unfortunately, hit the same wall in both classes.
The group opposing the use of college entrance exams would perform well at first, offering strong claims about how the exams are an inadequate tool for selecting which students will attend universities. Eventually, however, the group defending the exams would ask, “If we get rid of the exams, how will we determine who should go to college?”
Without hesitation, the opposing side replied, “The government will figure it out. That is their job, not ours”
The dispute essentially ended after that exchange. After the assertion that the government should establish a solution, the defenders of the exam would reply that the current system cannot be extinguished until another method is available to determine eligibility. The debate was stalemated.
The second time around, I warned the anti-exam group that their opponents will inevitably inquire about what other options are available to qualify students for higher education. I advised that they use some of the prep time to brainstorm other possibilities.
To my dismay, when asked about alternative college acceptance criteria, the group simply gave the same reply, asserting it as the government’s responsibility, implying that there is no need for their group to inquire about other options. I have to admit, I was rather disappointed. The debates provided another example of how Chinese aren’t educated to ‘think outside the box.’
I tried to be thorough and careful when lecturing on how to establish a strong argument and write a well-researched paper. I taught the basics of how to apply deductive and inductive reasoning to situations in general and to their research specifically. I also introduced Aristotle’s proofs (logos/logic, pathos/emotion, ethos/ethics) as the basic components of any means of persuasion. We then discussed how to research and what constitutes quality, reliable information.
Furthermore, I informed that if their thesis involves any need for a solution or policy proposal, they mustn’t assert that someone else needs to decide the answer. I understand that political debate is not completely tolerated in China but, in order to craft a sound argument, they must “pretend to be a government official whose responsibility is to present the argument to the court.” Without alternative possibilities, the argument will be weakened. If they don’t feel comfortable putting themselves in those shoes, I advised that they need to pick another topic.
I’ve got five weeks to guide them through the writing process, which will hopefully produce great argumentative, research papers!
Overall, the debates went well. Everyone had the opportunity to speak, remained respectful and presented his or her opinions clearly. For capital punishment, all the classic arguments were debated, including the value of life, governmental costs and whether criminals can be rehabilitated. Once the discussion was exhausted, we moved on to the second topic, which, unfortunately, hit the same wall in both classes.
The group opposing the use of college entrance exams would perform well at first, offering strong claims about how the exams are an inadequate tool for selecting which students will attend universities. Eventually, however, the group defending the exams would ask, “If we get rid of the exams, how will we determine who should go to college?”
Without hesitation, the opposing side replied, “The government will figure it out. That is their job, not ours”
The dispute essentially ended after that exchange. After the assertion that the government should establish a solution, the defenders of the exam would reply that the current system cannot be extinguished until another method is available to determine eligibility. The debate was stalemated.
The second time around, I warned the anti-exam group that their opponents will inevitably inquire about what other options are available to qualify students for higher education. I advised that they use some of the prep time to brainstorm other possibilities.
To my dismay, when asked about alternative college acceptance criteria, the group simply gave the same reply, asserting it as the government’s responsibility, implying that there is no need for their group to inquire about other options. I have to admit, I was rather disappointed. The debates provided another example of how Chinese aren’t educated to ‘think outside the box.’
I tried to be thorough and careful when lecturing on how to establish a strong argument and write a well-researched paper. I taught the basics of how to apply deductive and inductive reasoning to situations in general and to their research specifically. I also introduced Aristotle’s proofs (logos/logic, pathos/emotion, ethos/ethics) as the basic components of any means of persuasion. We then discussed how to research and what constitutes quality, reliable information.
Furthermore, I informed that if their thesis involves any need for a solution or policy proposal, they mustn’t assert that someone else needs to decide the answer. I understand that political debate is not completely tolerated in China but, in order to craft a sound argument, they must “pretend to be a government official whose responsibility is to present the argument to the court.” Without alternative possibilities, the argument will be weakened. If they don’t feel comfortable putting themselves in those shoes, I advised that they need to pick another topic.
I’ve got five weeks to guide them through the writing process, which will hopefully produce great argumentative, research papers!
0 comments:
Post a Comment