Arguing Differently - Who Benefits?

The standout article for me this week was Kroll's "Arguing Differently."  I actually found myself responding to him quite positively, and I thought that his ideas were certainly employable in the writing classroom.  Kroll makes several good points throughout the article - teaching students to argue in different ways not only enhances their argument but also makes paper-reading more interesting for the teacher.  Forcing students to reconsider the way they present arguments in their papers also puts them in a problem-solving position - it is clear from the article that the students struggled with implementing these different styles, and parts of the essay that once seemed so easy to craft, like transitions, suddenly had to be rethought.  Some of my best writing has come out of my own experimentation with different mode of argument, and I think it is a wonderful exercise for students.  It is also great preparation for arguing in other disciplines and even outside of academia - these methods have plenty of utility.  They're good life skills, not just academic skills.

That being said, I agree with Devin that this may not be the best exercise for freshman writing students.  Without a good foundation for argumentative writing, students cannot begin to experiment with new modes of it.  I think it is telling that the student that he quotes as having gotten so much from the class was one of his best students - the reason she was so negative towards the class at the beginning was because she already had a good foundation of writing skills, and was being forced to reconsider those already perfected methods.  I once considered taking an Advanced Writing course back in Providence, but after reading the course description, I decided that I already liked my way of writing and that I did not want to try out any new methods.  I know I would have had the same reaction as that girl in Kroll's class, and I probably would have benefited just as much as she did had I taken it.  As I said earlier, though, I was already at an advanced stage of writing, just like that student.

Finally, what I liked most about Kroll's article (and this goes for Elbow too, to an extent) is that he was able to provide the theoretical and the practical at the same time.  Unlike Sirc, I was not waiting for what seemed like an eternity to find out how to put these ideas into use in the classroom - Kroll gave examples of the ways in which the students implemented all of these different types of arguments into their papers.  This would be especially useful if I were to implement it in a classroom, already having ideas of how to help students craft these kinds of arguments if they got stuck.

As an aside, I did like Elbow's article, and I agree with him that academic essays can get a little dry and that the best ones are those that are interesting to readers and keep them turning the pages.  I thought that this was not very far from our conversation in the classroom last week about the differences and similarities between creative and academic writing, and I still believe that both have something to learn from each other.  Elbow, of course, makes this conversation more interesting with his music metaphor - and I think that there is definitely something for academic writers to learn here.  Whether or not they will listen or change their ways, though, is another story entirely.  They could be just like that advanced student in Kroll's class, averse to change in her forms and methods.