Evaluating .......Social Studies High School Journal

8/4/2019 Evaluating .......Social Studies High School Journal

1/12

Evaluating the Jurisprudencial Approach to the Social StudiesAuthor(s): Donald W. Oliver and James P. ShaverSource: The High School Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Nov., 1962), pp. 53-63Published by: University of North Carolina PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40366449 .

Accessed: 23/09/2011 12:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

High School Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40366449?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40366449?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress


2/12

Evaluating theJurisprudentialApproachto the Social StudiesDonald W. Oliver and JamesP. ShaverGraduate School of Education, Harvard UniversityJ) EFLECTIVE MORALITY is the termused by Deweyto indi--*-Vcate n intellectualprocessbywhich men in a democratic o-ciety mightdeal with and resolvepolitical and social problems.In another rticle,1we called our own effortso teachsuch a proc-ess of reflectionhe"jurisprudential" pproach to instruction.Westatedthat a jurisprudential urriculumwould focusupon a seriesof relatedquestions:1.What is an adequate description f the objectivesituationwhichcausesan ethicalcontroversyr dispute?2.To what extent is the controversial ituationso pressingthat the government an justifiably se its coercivepower

to restrict ersonal liberty n the interests f the commun-ity?3. To what extentdo the rightswe wish to restrict y lawhave Constitutional uarantees?4. To what extentdo specific hecksand restrictionswithinthe AmericanConstitutional ystem dequately reduce orunreasonably estrict overnmental ower?In a jurisprudential pproachto instruction, e suggested, ertainconcepts nd theirapplicationshould be taught. These included:

1.Concepts which describe the basic values of American society,as well asthe consentsystemdesigned to maintain and support these values. Theseinclude such values as personal freedom nd personal privacy (e.g. speech,conscience, contract and property),equal opportunity,equal protectionunder law, peace and order,a concernforthe generalwelfare nd progressof the community, nd concern for the welfare of each individual, i.e.,brotherhood nd charity.22. Conceptsrelated to the intellectualprocessby which ethical and empiricaldisputescan be more intelligently andled. These conceptswould include1 Donald W. Oliver. "Educating Citizens for Responsible Individualism, 1960-1980."In Franklin Patterson (ed.), Citizenshipand a Free Society: Education for the Future.Washington, D. 0.: National Council for the Social Studies, 30th Yearbook, 1960,Chapter 11.3 See, for example,Gunnar Myrdalon the American Creed in, An AmericanDilemma.New York: Harper & Brothers, 1944.


3/12

54 The High School Journal [Novemberthe distinction between definitional, mpirical,and normativeproblemsaswell as the proof process by which problemscan best be handled.33. Concepts fromthe social scienceswhich give the person a more adequatemeans of describingand handling descriptionsof social phenomena, e.g.,"culture" and "social class."We must confessthat there s nothingverynew in theseob-jectives. They are commonlydescribedand espoused under theterm critical"or "reflective"hinking r the"problems pproach."The worksofDeweyand Tufts,4Raup et al.,5 and Hunt and Met-calf6are each landmarks n social education clarifyingnd rein-forcing hispointof view. We have done two things, owever, nwhichwe should like to comment. We have developed a twoyearcurriculumspecificallydesigned to teach ^'reflectivemorality."(We realize that most curricula have as one of their aims theteachingof "criticalthinking."However,this outcome is usuallyanticipated s a by-productf some morecentralobjective, uchas"teachingAmericanhistory.") Second,we have attempted o trans-late theobjectives f urisprudential eaching nto specificearning

outcomeswhichcan be described nd identifiedmoreprecisely. tis this latter effort hat we shall describebriefly n this paper.Beforedoing so, however,we should clarify wo points. First,wemake no pretense hattheseoutcomes onstitute n exhaustive n-ventory f reflectivehinking onceptsor skills. Second, they renotgeneralcriticalor reflectivehinking utcomes n the sense hatthey apply to any content;we are concernedonlywith theirap-propriatenessn teaching tudentshow to deal withpoliticalcon-troversy ithinthe frameworkf the Westernpolitical tradition.OperationalObjectives fa JurisprudentialSocial StudiesCurriculum

A student hould be able to:l.Deal with political controversyt a general analytic level and relate hisanalysis to specific ssues and concrete cases. For example, in a case in-volving the arrest of a sidewalk orator, the students should see that cer-tain general values are involved, e.g. freedom of speech, the peace andsafety of the community,and the propertyrights of nearby shoppers.8 See, for example Max Black. Critical Thinking An Introduction to Logic andScientific ethod. 2nd ed.) NewYork: Prentice-Hall,952; M. R. Cohen nd ErnestNagel. An Introduction to Logic and ScientificMethod. New York: Har court, Brace &Co., 1934; and, C. L. Stevenson. thicsand Language.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress,1944.*JohnDeweyandJamesH. Tufts.Ethics.NewYork H. Holt& Co. 1908.5R. B. Raup,Q. E. Axtelle, . D. Benne,and B. O. Smith.The ImprovementfPractical ntelligence. ew York: Harper& Brothers. 950.aMauriceP. Hunt and LawrenceE. Metcalf.TeachingHigh SchoolSocial Studies.NewYork: Harper& Brothers,955.


4/12

1962] COFCEENING THE CuREICULUM 55If theorator s said to be creating disturbance,he studenthouldseethattheterm disturbance"s a relatively agueone which reates efini-tionalproblems.He should ee thatthe assertionbout the peech ausinga disturbanceequires reater pecification.hinking bout a particularcase in terms f such ssues s definingdisturbance"nd "free peech"we think,llowsthe studento deal with hecaseat two evels:he identi-fiesgeneralproblemsnherentn thiskind of case,and thenplacesthefacts f thiscase within hecontext f thesemoregeneral roblems.2. dentifynconsistenciesnd conflictsetween wo ormorevalues, mpiricalstatements,r difinitions.

3.Deal with nconsistenciesnd conflictsetweenvaluesby identifyingnarray f situationsn which he nconsistentr conflictingalues are pre-sented n varying egrees f favorablenessr unfavorablenessn orderto delineate t whatpointhe shouldsupportone value as against heother. Forexample,we might upport ree peechoverpeace and orderif theonly danger nvolvedwas a sidewalk isturbance.We might ow-ever,reverse ur position f such speecheswere inflamingiotsor aninsurrection.4.Deal with nconsistenciesnd conflicts etween mpirical tatementsyseekingnd evaluatingpecificvidence o support hestatements.5.Deal with he nconsistentr ambiguous se of words yseekingvidenceconcerningow thewords re mostcommonlysed,or how theconceptswhich hewordsabelmaybe most ccuratelyescribed.6.Distinguishetween hosefactual laimswhich re relevant o the centra]value issues n a controversynd thoseclaimswhich bear little or norelationshipo thevalue.The level of specificity ithwhichtheseoperations re statedabove,we think,makestheproblemof assessing student's bilityto performnyof them ess difficulthanassessingwhether r nota studenthas learned to use some generalprocesscalled "criticalthinking"or "problemsolving." Even with generality nd am-

biguity educed,however,manyproblemsofmeasurementemain.The AssessmentfLearningOutcomesWe have tried a numberof waysof translating hese earningoutcomes nto measurableunits. All startat the same point. Weask the studentto read and analyze,eitherby himselfor in agroup,a controversial olitical situation- controversial ase. Inone approach,we thengive the student pecific tatementsn theargument, ither n written r oral form, nd ask himwhatfunc-tion theyserve. Do theyforexample, transformhe case into amoregeneralproblem,or continueto deal withit as an isolatedinstanceof personalconflict?A second approach is to takestate-mentsmade in the argument,nd ask the studentto rebutthem.This can be done either with open-endedquestions,or by pre-


5/12

56 The High School Jouenal [Novembersenting eriesof fiveor six rebutsfromwhichhe is to choose thebest and/ortheworst.The approach we have foundthe mostpromising,however,sthe systematic nalysisand categorization f statementsmade inoral discussions. Some advantagesto this approach are obvious.The oral discussion s a morenatural ituation n whichto ascertainthe analytical skills of the student. (How many studentswriteabout political questions aftertheyleave school?) The oral dis-cussionalso providesthe studentwithless structure hanobjectivepencil-and-paper ests. In criticalthinking estsof the lattertype,for example, the student s commonlypresentedwith a message,parts of which are abstractedfor analysis. He is then asked todeal only with these parts in his response,which is alreadyre-strictedby a multiple choice set. The student thus has a verynarrow angeofbehaviorwithinwhich he can choose. In theopendiscussion,however,he must selectrelevantpartsof the controver-sial case and theensuingdiscussionwith which to deal. He is thusforced o selectfrom muchbroaderrangeof alternative esponseswhichhe mustcreatefor himself.This last"advantage"ofsystematicontent nalysis s,ofcourse,also its greatestdifficulty. ecause there s such a wide range ofalternativeresponseswhich the student can make, all typesofresponsesmust be anticipatedso that theycan be evaluated andscored. Instead of a simplekeyto a test,the scorer findshimselfwith a long and complexmanual in which hundreds of typesofresponsesmay be describedand classified. Because of this com-plexity, coring s difficult,equiring long trainingperiod. Fur-thermore hescoringprocess tselfs lessreliable.As an example of thesystematicontentanalysisapproach,weshould like to present set of categorieswe have worked out andused to evaluate thestudent's bility o handle controversialoliti-cal issues.Synopsisof a ContentAnalysisSystemfor Scoring the Student'sAbilitytoAnalyzeand ResolvePolitical Controversy.Although hefollowing iscussionmay eemsomewhat echnical,the reader should understandthat because content analysis at-tempts o deal with "freecommunication/'manyproblemsoccurwhich are simply voidedin a pre-structuredest. Nor can we dealhere with all the problemsof an approach to the evaluation ofreflectivehinking ased on content nalysis. It is hoped,however,


6/12

1962] Concerning the Curriculum 57that we mightcommunicateboth the advantagesas well as thecomplexities f thisapproach n the short pace available.Systematicnalysisof interaction, s we use the methodology,involvesanalyzingongoing interaction nto discreteunits whichare thencategorized.There are three mportant onsiderationsncarrying ut this categorization:

(1) Into what size unitswill the total train of interaction ebroken?(2) What is theframe f reference f the scorer?(3) What is the specificnature of the categoriesused to de-scribe the interaction?Theoretically, nits can range in size fromentiremeetings rdiscussions o particular egments f the discussionwhichmaybedenned in termsof time,a completedverbal interchange, r ac-cording o some linguistic onvention.We have dennedour unitas a single temof thought.Linguistically, his s mostcommonlya simpleor complexsentenceor the independent lausesof com-pound sentences. There are, however,some exceptionsto thisconventionwhichbringus back to themoregeneralruleof a singleitemofthought.For example, fa case is presentedwhich s to becomparedto the originalcase under discussion, t is scored as asingleunit even though t may consistof several sentences.Also,sources of evidence,although theyare embedded in simple sen-tences, re scored eparately. "The New York Timesreported hatfederaltroopswereused to restore rderat CentralHigh School,"would be scored s twounits.)In determining he frame of reference o the scorera majorconsiderations how much of the discussionthe observer houldtakeinto account n classifying particularact. Since our systemuses twoscoring ystems uperimposed n each other, t also usestwo contexts: ne forwhatwe call staticcategories; he otherfordynamic ategories.The dynamic ystem see Chart 1) consists fcategorieswhichrequire thescorerto deal witha contextbeyondthe statement eing categorized.This may include one or severalother sentences.Scoring n these categories s determinedby re-lationships mong statements.The staticcategories see Chart 2)theoreticallyan be scoredwithouttakinginto account any con-textbeyondthescorableunit. Everyunit ofbehavior s scored na staticcategory.Dynamic operationsare scoredonlywhen they


7/12

58 The High School Journal [Novemberare identified.Thus, when a dynamic peration s scored, doublecategorizationf the same unit occurs.There are someexceptions, owever, o this distinction etweenstatic and dynamiccategories.The category relevance,"for ex-ample, is a dynamiccategory, ut it is scored as if it werestaticbecause the assertion r questioningof relevanceusuallycontainsan obvious cue within the statement tself, nd because there sno static ategorywhich an be appropriatelycoredwith t.PostureoftheSpeaker"Posture"refers o the attitudeof thespeakertowardthestate-menthe is making. Put anotherway,posture ndicatesthe func-tionwhichthat statement s performingor the speaker. We haveidentified nd used four postures: declarative statements; nter-rogativestatements; tatementswhich question or expressdoubtabout a priorstatement often n eitherthe declarativeor inter-rogativeform, ut withan overtone f argumentativentent); nd,statementswhich expressself-doubt as, forexample,uncertaintyas to thevalidity f a claimwhichhas been or is goingto be madebythespeaker) The posture f thespeaker s scoredwith a symbolwithin the space providedon a scoring heet for the appropriatestaticcategory.Orientationof theSpeakerto the Discussion:AnalysisversusPersuasionWe also distinguish nd score whetheror not the speakeristrying o persuade othergroupmembers hat his positionin theargument s correct, r whether e is attempting o stay"outside"the argument nd simplyanalyzehow the group mightconstruethe issues n thecase. For example,"That personshouldnothavebeen allowed to speak because avoiding a riot is more importantthan his rightto speak," is scored as persuasive. The statement,"The problemhereis thattheprinciples ffreedom fspeechandpeace and order are both involved n the situation and we mustdecide which value should be given greaterweightin this in-stance," s scoredan analytical.ValidityndReliabilityInitially,of course,usingthesystem o categorize tatementsna discussionresults n an abstract ognitivedescription f thedis-cussion. This rescriptionmust be translated nto a quantitative


8/12

1962] CONCEKNING THE CUBRICULTJM 59score by determiningwhich categoriesseem valuable from thepoint of viewof our objectives, nd thencountingthe frequencywithwhichthe unitsare scored n thesecategories.This selectionof valued categoriess essentially questionofvalidity. Thus farthesystemppears to have not only ntuitive r facevalidity, utit also reflectshe effect f increased rainingn reflectivehinking.We plan to carry ut proceduresby which validitycan be morefirmlystablished, owever. Presently,we feel that the followingcategorieshave value fora discussion nvolvingpolitical contro-versy.Static Categories:General Value Judgmentsand General Legal Claims are valued becausetheyallow the student to deal with the controversial ase at a more abstractand general evel.SpecificFactual Claims and Sources are valued because theyare most com-monly used to support more general claims. They are most often associatedwith the empiricalproof process.DefinitionalClaims are valued because theytend to be used to give greaterprecision to the various positions in the argument.Clarifications not valued, since it involvesmainlystatementswhich repeatsomething already said. When the student clarifies by drawing finer dis-tinctionsbetweenpositionsor terms n the argument, t is scored as a Defini-tional Claim.Case is valued because, by definition, t is an attemptto expose the pointat which an individual will reverse his position, given an array of similarsituations to judge. It is essentiallypart of a definingoperation.Relevance is valued because it indicates that the student is attemptingtodeal with the relationship between a particular statement and some largerfacetof the total argument.Dynamic Categories:For obvious reasons, all three dynamic categoriesare valued. They havebeen selectedforscoring preciselybecause we think theyare important.Orientationto Discussion:The analytic orientation to the discussion is valued because it tends toindicate that the student is attemptingto stand back from the immediatepersuasive aspects of the argumentand provide a more impartial frameworkbywhichto deal with the controversy.

It should be noted that these valued acts are not simplyaproductof a priori guessingabout what acts operate to producethe most intelligentdiscussion. In arriving t our presentposi-tion,wehave listenedtomanydiscussions nd done a good deal ofcutting nd fittingo make our quantitative coresconsistentwithour intuitiveudgments bout whatbehavior s actuallyvaluable.


9/12

60 The High School Journal [NovemberAlthough validity s based mainlyon the casual subjective udg-ments of scorers,we have done moresystematic ork to establishwhetheror not the subletiesof language can be reliably scoredwith thesegross categories.Reliabilitywas a concern t two evels. Initially, s partof thetrainingprocedure,agreementamong observersconcerningthecategorization f statementswas checkedby a graphic method.7Having reachedan acceptable evel of agreement s establishedbythismethod,we turned to the agreementbetween observersonthe total numberof valued actswhichshould be creditedto eachstudent.The degreeofassociationwas estimated singtheproduct-momentcorrelation.Four personsweretrainedto use our system.Each was paired witheveryotherscorer, o that six scoringcom-binationsresulted. The numberof interviewscoredby each com-binationrangedfrom10 to 18. The results re shown n theupperhalf of Table 1. There is no widelyacceptedcriterion or the ac-ceptanceof such coefficientss satisfactory;s Heyns and Zander8point out,whether ne demandsa correlation f 70 or .90 is con-tingentupon the uses to whichthe observational coresare to be

Table 1- Reliability Estimates* for Four ObserversUsing the CategorySystem A B C DA .55 .82 .87B .48 .93 .69C .69 .78 .68D .62 .64 .72* Coefficientsn the upperhalfof thematrix re forproduct-momentorrelations;in thelowerhalf,for rankordercorrelations.put. As we are not now reporting ur systemwithin a specificresearch ontext,t seems ufficiento pointthatwiththeexceptionof one coefficientll approach at least .70, with two greater han.80,and one greater han 90,and that s,on theaverage, relative-ly high level of agreement.Because teachersare oftenincreased n rankingstudentsforpurposesofgrading nd a setofcategoriesuchas we are reportingheremightwell be an appropriate valuationdevice fora teacherconcernedwith "jurisprudential"objectives,9 t was decided to7Binomial robabilityaperas developed y Frederick ostellernd J. W. Tuckeyand reportedn, "The Uses and Usefulness f BinomialProbabilityaper." AmericanStatisticalAssociation ournal, 949, 44, 174-212. For a statementf its applicationto systematicbservation,eeR. F. Bales, nteractionrocessAnalysis.Cambridge ass.Addison-Wesleyress. 1951, pp. 111-112.8R. W. Heyns nd A. F. Zander, ObservationfGroupBehavior." n L. Festengerand B. Katz,ResearchMethodsn theBehavioral ciences. New York: DrydenPress,1953, p. 411.9See, forexample,JamesP. Shaver. "EducationalResearchand InstructionorCritical hinking." ocial Education. In press)


10/12

1962] Concerning the Curriculum 61estimate he agreement mongobserverswith the rank-orderor-relation. These results are shown in the lowerhalf of Table 1.While thesecorrelations re not as striking s those n the upperhalfof thetable,they ertainlyndicate highdegree fagreementamong rankingsbased on the scoresobtainedby the variouspairsof scores. It should also be keptin mind thattherank-order or-relation indicates only relationshipsbetween ranks, while theproduct-momentorrelation s an indication of the relationshipbetweenscores. One mightalso note that if in determining helevel of agreement mong scorers, coresweregroupedinto largecategories s is actuallydone by teachers n gradingstudents-.e.,A,B, C, D, E- estimates freliabilitywould undoubtedly e higher.ConclusionThe translation ftheobjectives f the urisprudentialpproachinto specificearningoutcomeswhichcan be measuredwitha setof categories uch as described n thisarticlepresents,we believe,unusual possibilitiesfor curricularevaluation. Because learningoutcomes an then be measured n a situation ess structuredhanpaper-and-pencilesta and approachingmuchmorecloselythe cir-cumstancesn whichthedesiredconceptswill later be applied, theevaluationof educationalobjectives akeson greatermeaningandvalidity. Our reliabilitydata suggestthe feasibility f this ap-proachto assessment othin experimentationnd classroom each-ing. It should be noted,too, that ust as a teachermightduringanyone periodof time teachforonlyone or a fewof theconceptsincluded n thecategoryet, o might heset be modified o includefewer ategoriesn orderto simplifycoring.There is no denying he impracticabilityf the system or theday to day needs of the averageclassroom.Teachers, in general,have neitherthe researchcompetencenor the time to learn anduse sucha complexsystem.Ultimately, owever, hemorecomplexinstrumentmightbe used to establishthevalidityof simpler ate-gorysystems, r even of pencil-and-paper ests. There is littledoubt in our minds thatpresentmethodsof measurementwhichattempt o assess theprocessof reflectivehinkingwitha seriesoffragmentedmultiplechoice itemsshow insufficientespectforthesubtlety nd complexity f thiscompetence. It is our convictionthatmeasurementrogramswillbecomemore ignificanto teachersand research eople whenevaluationbeginswitha recognition f


11/12

62 The High School Journal [Novemberthe complexity f the phenomenathey re attempting o describeand assess.

CHART l-DYNAMIC CATEGORIESCONFLICT-CONSISTENCY: Statementsthat indicate explicitlyor implicitlythat the speaker is aware of a real or possible inconsistencywithin hisown or another speaker's position.SPECIFICATION and GENERALIZATION: Specificationoccurs when thespeaker gives a specificstatementto illustrateor support a more generalstatement. Generalizationoccurs when the speaker draws a more general

conclusion from one or more specific tatements lready given.Example of specification: "Desegregation is not going well. Only 7% ofthe Negro children in the South are now going to integrated chools afterseven years of illegal segregation." The second sentence would be scoredas the static operation "specificclaim" and the dynamicoperation "specifi-cation."Example of a generalization: "AfterWorld War II, Russia captured thecountriesof easternEurope, helped China to become a Communistnation,and tried its best to take over Greece and Turkey. Russia is the greatestempirialisticnation the world has ever known." Statementtwo would bescored as a static operation "general claim," and a dynamic operation"generalization."QUALIFYING: A statementwhich deals with an implicit or explicit incon-sistencyor conflictby pointing out under what general circumstances nexception to a general principle is allowable or possible we score as aqualifying act.Example: Mr. A: Our civil liberties are our most precious asset. To tryand restrictthem for any citizen is un-American.Mr. B: If you had been in Germany n the early 1930's,wouldyou have restricted ome of the civil liberties granted Hitlerwhen he was conductingmass hate meetings.Mr. A: I verywell mighthave. I would say that civil liberties

should be restricted, owever,only when the governmentwhichis pledged to protectthem is in real danger froman undemo-cratic and brutal force,which would destroyall civil liberties.Mr. A's modifiedposition would be scored as static operation "general valuejudgment," and dynamic operation "qualification."CHART 2-STATIC CATEGORIES

GENERAL VALUE JUDGMENTS: Statements n which the speakerexpressesa preferencefor a person,object or position in the argument n termsofa general social or legal value, such as: personal privacy,property, ontract,speech,religion,generalwelfareof the group, equality, ustice,brotherhood,due process,consentand representation. Mr. Kohler certainly hould havethe right to run his propertyand to make contractswith his workerswithoutunion interference."SPECIFIC VALUE JUDGMENTS: Statements n which the speaker expressesa preferencefor a person,object or position in the argument n termsof


12/12

1962] Concerning the Curriculum 63the specificcase under discussion. "I think Mr. Kohler should have metthe demands of the United Auto Workers."GENERAL LEGAL CLAIM: Statements in which the speaker asserts thatsomeone has a legal rightto do something, xpressed n termsof a generallegal principle,such as: rule of law, due process,equal protectionunderthe law, constitutionalrestraints, tc. "He has a right to a fair trialunder the United States Constitution."SPECIFIC LEGAL CLAIM: Statements in which the speaker asserts thatsomeone has a legal right to do something,but does not give a legalprinciple as a basis for the right. "Mr. Kohler has a right to fire anyworkerhe wants."GENERAL FACTUAL CLAIMS: Causal, descriptive, r predictivegeneraliza-tions. "Negroes are just as intelligentas whites."SPECIFIC FACTUAL CLAIMS: Statementsdescribingspecificevents deline-ated in time and space. "The firstattemptat integration n Little Rockwas on September4, 1957."SOURCE: A statement r part of a statementdescribingthe source on whicha claim,definition r value judgment is based. "Emergency s definedthisway in Webster'sNew International Dictionary."DEFINITIONAL CLAIM: A statement bout how a word or phrase is definedor should be defined. It is also a statementof analysis by which severalmeaningsof a single word might be distinguished."An emergency ccurswhen one or more people are in danger of being injured or losing theirlives and property."CLARIFICATION: A statement in which the speaker communicatessome-thing already stated in order to focus the discussion. It may includesimple repetition, n that sayingsomething gain may emphasize or clarifya person's position.CASE: A set of statementswhich describesspecificreal or hypothetical itua-tions analogous to the one under discussion. Its main purpose is toelaborate the range of situations to which one might apply a value judg-ment. "Suppose Negroes and whites were given schools of equal quality,teachersof equal quality, books and educational facilities f equal quality:Would Negro schools still be inferiorto white schools?"RELEVANCE: A statementwhich explicitlydeals with the way a statementor groupof statements s related to the total argument. "I don't see whatthat statementhas to do with the discussion."DEBATE STRATEGY: Ad hominem or other remarks which explicitlydis-cuss the tacticsbeing used by the opponent. "You're just tryingto con-fuseme."TASK PROBLEM: PROCEDURAL: A statementdirected at controllingtheimmediate nterpersonal ituation,and which assumes that everyone n thediscussion s tryingto do a conscientious ob. "Let's take a vote." "Let'sgive everyonea chance to talk."

TASK PROBLEM: DEVIANCE CONTROL: A statementdirected at con-trollingthe immediate interpersonalsituation,and assuming that one ormore people are violating group norms. "Get back in your seat and sitdown." "You don't have to shout."

Evaluating .......Social Studies High School Journal

Documents

Transcript of Evaluating .......Social Studies High School Journal