Description:
Satisfied the Graduate Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR)
|
Introduces cooperative argumentation. Develops empathic and critical listening, reading, writing, and speaking skills for cooperative deliberation and problem solving practices; applies and assesses reasoning and argumentative skills in oral and written communication contexts on various topics. Offers built-in assessment in HCOM MLO 1 or the concentrations in Peace Studies, Pre-Law, Practical and Professional Ethics or Writing and Rhetoric.
|
Course Narrative
This class focused on argumentation for the sake of having differing viewpoints and a way of finding the middle ground. The inconvenience of such a concept is daunting for somebody like myself, having less confidence in confrontational situations than the average person. But this class established principles of behavior within cooperative argumentation - not arguing - and the steps to be taken in finding the compromise needed for the situation. It was a difficult concept for me to learn, but I took away an important set of values: different perspectives will come up in life, and one must face cooperative argumentation for sustaining coexistence. This class created two major papers in which we studied argumentation, were guided through debate, and evaluated the principles we were taught about cooperative argumentation.
One of these was a project debate formulated by a group of people, meant to create cooperative argumentation in a group, where it is not one individual’s perspective but the entire group’s collaborative efforts and arguments. It was a much more difficult project than it seemed though, as each person had a slightly different viewpoint with the same final perspective, each having a different idea to add that often conflicted with others of the group. The final project was a conglomerate of ideas and multiple solutions to the issue, in order to come to some form of compromise that the opposition would agree to (see paper pdf example).
The other argumentation paper was a final project that each student did on their own. I focused my efforts on “Anonymous: Protest to the New World Issues” in which I argued for the efforts of a protesting group known as “Anonymous,” an internet handle that can be and has been used by anybody. In arguing for this group I had to take a look at all of the problems they have presented and find a common ground as to whether or not this group was worth arguing for. My final paper to satisfy the GWAR requirement for CSU Monterey Bay evaluates my research and the arguments that I compiled in support of the group’s efforts (see paper pdf example).
One of these was a project debate formulated by a group of people, meant to create cooperative argumentation in a group, where it is not one individual’s perspective but the entire group’s collaborative efforts and arguments. It was a much more difficult project than it seemed though, as each person had a slightly different viewpoint with the same final perspective, each having a different idea to add that often conflicted with others of the group. The final project was a conglomerate of ideas and multiple solutions to the issue, in order to come to some form of compromise that the opposition would agree to (see paper pdf example).
The other argumentation paper was a final project that each student did on their own. I focused my efforts on “Anonymous: Protest to the New World Issues” in which I argued for the efforts of a protesting group known as “Anonymous,” an internet handle that can be and has been used by anybody. In arguing for this group I had to take a look at all of the problems they have presented and find a common ground as to whether or not this group was worth arguing for. My final paper to satisfy the GWAR requirement for CSU Monterey Bay evaluates my research and the arguments that I compiled in support of the group’s efforts (see paper pdf example).
Photo used under Creative Commons from Free Public Domain Illustrations by rawpixel