GENERAL RESOURCES - Cengagecollege.cengage.com/.../white/argument/1e/instructors/irm/general.pdf ·...

GENERAL RESOURCES

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 1

Teaching with The Well-Crafted Argument

We’ve based The Well-Crafted Argument on choices. Why? Because we believe that to craft an argument well, a writer must choose the approach that best suits the rhetorical situation at hand. We present the concept of the rhetorical rhombus early on: Purpose, Audience, Writer, and Subject (PAWS). Each of the four corners of the rhombus affects the way an argument is crafted. No single approach will necessarily work for all audiences or all subjects; no single approach will necessarily work for every writer. For that reason, in our book we do not privilege a single model of argument but instead present three: the Classical/Aristotelian model, the Toulmin model, and the Rogerian model. We use the idea of choices in our discussion of reading as well: not everything that is written needs to be read in the same way. Therefore, in the chapter on critical reading strategies, we refer to the different ways in which readers might approach texts, depending on their purposes for reading the material. In addition, just as one needs to practice writing, we explain why one needs to practice reading critically, devoting a chapter to methods and errors of reasoning. We also go beyond the MLA format to discuss other formats in our documentation guidelines. Congruent with our notions about choices, the rhetorical rhombus, and critical reading, we provide readings from both published authors and student writers for several reasons: (1) Students can see how their peers have responded to the readings by published authors in the Reading Clusters. (2) Instructors not only can use the readings by published authors to assign topics for students to write about but also can use student essays for instructional purposes. We are pleased to have produced a textbook on argument that includes a plethora of student essays, both within the chapters of the rhetoric and within the clusters of readings. We have included a wide range of essays within Part II, “Reading Clusters,” so that instructors and students alike can find subjects that genuinely spark their interests and can choose what works best for their particular rhetorical situations. In addition to the

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 3

eight Reading Clusters that present different sides of controversial issues, we include a ninth cluster that features classic arguments, including Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” Andrew Marvell’s “To His Coy Mistress,” Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” and Frederick Douglass’s “I Hear the Mournful Cry of Millions.” Instructors may find this ninth cluster useful when covering the chapters on different ways to organize arguments. They may also have students analyze these pieces as their first writing project or assign these essays to help students practice reading, summarizing, and analyzing the arguments of others before writing their own. In addition to the text’s readings, instructors can find auxiliary teaching materials on the Web site associated with this text. Instructors with advanced students may find the explanations and student examples of satire in “Other Modes of Argument” appropriate for their classes. Likewise, the site’s exploration of the mode of argument called Motivational argument may answer a question that occasionally comes up: “Why write to an audience that already agrees with you?” (The student essay in Part I, Chapter 8, by Jarrett Green illustrates the Motivational argument nicely.)

Course Planning

In our text we have provided a great number of essay choices so that instructors and students alike can choose those Reading Clusters that most apply or appeal to them. Student writers can choose the model for argument that best suits their rhetorical situations. We have also provided numerous exercises and suggestions for writing that follow the chapter material and Reading Clusters to enable instructors to select those that will best suit their students. In our own teaching, we rely on more than our own in-class instruction; we rely both on students and on conferences. We rely on students in that they can provide each other with the reactions of real readers and model for others different ways to approach a topic. For that reason, in the sample syllabi that follow, we have included small-group critiquing/peer critiquing and, in the semester syllabi, symposia as part of the lesson plans. We have included a “Guideline for Peer Critiques” both on the web site and at the end of this overview that you may wish to distribute to students to use.

Sample Syllabi

The following are suggested syllabi for use with The Well-Crafted Argument—one for the semester system and two for the quarter system.

1-4 Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

General Resources 5

Syllabus—Semester System

Week 1

What is an argument?

Reading: Chapter 1, “Anatomy of an Argument”

In-class activity: Students interview one another about their study habits (preparation for writing an essay on the most or least efficient study habits)

Introducing the rhetorical rhombus

Week 2

Introducing the basic structure of arguments

Evidence and appeals in arguments

In-class activity: Examining arguments and ads for uses of evidence and appeals.

Week 3

Introducing the Classical argument

Reading: Chapter 2, “Using the Classical Model in Your Arguments”

Discussion: Organizing an argument using the Classical model (Emphasize section on Classical organization.)

Discussion: Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” (from Reading Cluster 9, “Famous Arguments”)

In-class activity: Small-group critiquing: Students’ Classical-modeled arguments.

Week 4

Introducing the Toulmin argument

Reading: Chapter 3, “Using the Toulmin Model in Your Arguments”

Analysis of selected Toulmin-modeled arguments

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

6 General Resources

Discussion: Organizing an argument using the Toulmin model (Emphasize section on Toulmin organization.)

Discussion: “Roe v. Wade” (from Reading Cluster 9)

In-class activity: Small-group critiquing: Students’ Toulmin-modeled arguments.

Week 5

Introducing the Rogerian argument

Reading: Chapter 4, “Using the Rogerian Model in Your Arguments”

Discussion: Organizing an argument using the Rogerian model (Emphasize section on Rogerian organization.)

Discussion: King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (from Chapter 4), Douglass’s “I Hear the Mournful Cry of Millions” (from Reading Cluster 9)

In-class activity: Small-group critiquing of students’ Rogerian-modeled arguments

Week 6

Discussion: Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s “Keynote Address at the First Woman’s Rights Convention” (from Reading Cluster 9)

Midterm Exam

Week 7

Individual or small-group conferences: preparation for upcoming in-class symposia.

Week 8

Symposium I: Panels of 4–5 students debate an issue featured in one of the Reading Clusters

Students choose their own mode of argument (Classical, Toulmin, Rogerian)

Symposium II: Same as Symposium I assignment

Methods of critical reasoning

Reading: Chapter 5, “Reasoning: Methods and Fallacies”

Week 9


General Resources 7

Symposium III: Same as Symposium I assignment

Errors in reasoning

Discussion: Common fallacies

Reading: Chapter 5 (continued)

Week 10

Symposium IV: Same as Symposium I assignment

Methods of critical reading

Discussion: Critical-reading strategies

Reading: Chapter 6, “Methods of Critical Reading”

Week 11

Methods of research

Reading: Chapter 7, “Researching Your Argument”

Library tour/class

Library research exercises

Week 12

Individual conferences: Discussion of research project proposals

Week 13

Oral presentations based on individual research projects

Week 14

Critiquing of drafts of research projects

Review of MLA/APA formats

Reading: Chapter 8, “Documenting Your Sources: MLA and APA Formats”

Week 15


8 General Resources

Course retrospective

Final drafts of research projects due

Research projects due


General Resources 9

Syllabus—Quarter System, M-W-F Schedule

A quarter system, as we know, is a “don’t-blink” whirlwind of a term. The following is a sample syllabus for a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule.

Week 1

Readings: Chapters 1, 2, and 3 (“Anatomy of an Argument,” “Using the Classical Model in Your Arguments,” and “Using the Toulmin Model in Your Arguments”)

Discussion: The rhetorical rhombus and the WTHC (“who-the-heck cares”) criterion

Week 2

Readings: Chapters 4, 5, 6 (“Using the Rogerian Model in Your Arguments,” “Reasoning: Methods and Fallacies,” and “Methods of Critical Reading”)

Discussion: “A Modest Proposal,” by Jonathan Swift (from Reading Cluster 9, “Famous Arguments”)

Assignment 1: Written analysis of one of the famous arguments in Reading Cluster 9, exclusive of the Swift entry (see writing prompt for assignment 1)—due on Friday of Week 2

Week 3

Readings: Reading Cluster 1 (selections chosen either by instructor or by vote in class during Week 2)

Discussion: Issues raised in Reading Cluster 1

Discussion: Potential essay topics arising from Reading Cluster 1 essays

Week 4

Readings: Chapter 7 (“Researching Your Argument”), Reading Cluster 2 (selections chosen either by instructor or by vote in class during Week 3)

Discussion: The need to consider researching topics beyond the text for the final paper due during finals period


10 General Resources


Discussion: Potential essay topics arising from Reading Cluster 2

Assignment 2: First argument of students’ own on a topic arising from Reading Cluster 1—due on Monday of Week 4

Week 5

Peer critique on Monday of drafts of essays on topics arising from Reading Cluster 2 (see “Procedures for Peer-Response Groups” document for students to use)

Conferences on Wednesday and Friday to discuss students’ drafts revised further after peer critiques

Week 6


Discussion: Researching additional essays to be written on topics from Reading Clusters 1 and 2

Assignment 3: Second argument of students’ own on a topic arising from the Second Reading Cluster 2—due on Monday of Week 6

Week 7

Peer critique on Monday of drafts of essays on topics arising from Reading Cluster 3

Conferences on Wednesday and Friday to discuss students’ drafts revised further after peer critiques

Week 8


Discussion: Researching additional essays to be written on topics from Reading Cluster 3

Assignment 4: Third argument of students’ own on a topic arising from Reading Cluster 3—due on Monday of Week 8

Week 9


General Resources 11

Peer critique on Monday of drafts of essays on topics arising from Reading Cluster 4

Conferences on Wednesday and Friday on students’ drafts revised further after peer critiques

Week 10

Review of material covered during the term

Discussion: Researching questions and problems that have arisen while students have been working on their final papers

Assignment 5: Fourth argument of students’ own on a topic arising from Reading Cluster 4—due on Friday of Week 10

Finals Week

Final assignment: Revision of argument written on Reading Cluster 1, 2, or 3, a revision that incorporates research beyond the information given in The Well-Crafted Argument (see the writing assignment “Argument Research Paper” for prompt)

N.B.: Students are to use Chapter 8 (“Documenting Your Sources”) as a resource rather than as reading material to be discussed in class. Students are therefore responsible for reading Chapter 8 on their own.



Syllabus—Quarter System, T-Th Schedule

The following is a sample syllabus for a Tuesday/Thursday schedule.

Week 1

Readings: Chapters 1 and 2 (“Anatomy of an Argument” and “Using the Classical Model in Your Arguments”)

Discussion: The rhetorical rhombus and the WTHC (“who-the-heck cares”) criterion

Week 2

Readings: Chapters 3 and 4 (“Using the Toulmin Model” and “Using the Rogerian Model”), Chapter 6 (“Methods of Critical Reading”)

Discussion: “A Modest Proposal,” by Jonathan Swift (from Reading Cluster 9, “Famous Arguments”)

Assignment 1: Written analysis of one of the famous arguments in Reading Cluster 9, exclusive of the Swift entry (see writing prompt for assignment 1)—due on Thursday of Week 2

Week 3

Readings: Chapter 5 (“Reasoning”) and begin Reading Cluster 1 (selections chosen either by instructor or by student vote)



Week 4

Readings: Complete discussion of Reading Cluster 1

Assignment 2: First argument of students’ own on a topic arising from Reading Cluster 1—due on Monday of Week 4



Week 5

Readings: Chapter 7 (“Researching Your Argument”) and begin Reading Cluster 2 (chosen either by instructor or by student vote)

Discussion: The need to consider researching topics beyond the text for the final paper due during finals period



Week 6

Readings: Complete discussion of Reading Cluster 2 issues

Peer critiques on Thursday

Discussion on Thursday of writing issues arising from first two written assignments

Week 7

Conferences on students’ drafts revised further after peer critiques

Week 8

Readings: Reading Cluster 3 (selections chosen either by instructor or by student vote)



Week 9

Peer critiques on first day

Conferences on students’ drafts revised further after peer critiques

Week 10

Review of material covered during the term

Discussion: Researching questions and problems that have arisen while students have been working on their final papers



Assignment 4: Third argument of students’ own on a topic arising from Reading Cluster 3—due on Friday of Week 10

Finals Week

Final assignment: Revision of argument written on Reading Cluster 1 or 2, a revision that incorporates research beyond the information given in The Well-Crafted Argument (See the “Argument Research Paper” writing assignment for prompt; the prompt, however, is designed for a M-W-F class that read four Reading Clusters.) N.B.: Students are to use Chapter 8 (“Documenting Your Sources”) as a resource rather than as reading to be discussed in class; students are therefore responsible for reading Chapter 8 on their own.

Useful Handouts for Peer Critique

The following are copies of two different peer-critique guidelines that you are welcome to use. You will also find copies on the Web site if you would like to copy them into your own files.



Procedures for Peer-Response Groups

Students bring three copies of their draft to class on the day when they are to critique each other’s drafts. In groups of three, the students exchange copies of their drafts and then follow these steps: 1. First, the writer notes any concerns he or she has about a draft—weak conclusion,

uncertainty about sentences’ boundaries, whatever. However, no apologies or excuses should be made; these are acknowledged drafts.

2. The writer then reads the draft aloud while the others follow along silently, writing

notes in the margins or next to words to discuss later. 3. The first comments peers make must be positive and specific—e.g., “I like the

image in the third paragraph,” or “I think the introduction captures the reader’s attention well because it’s so descriptive.”

4. Next, peers address the writer’s concerns, verifying or negating them. 5. Peers then bring up the points they had noted in the draft as they read, using as

guidelines the questions listed under “Global Concerns.” 6. Peers write out the foregoing information for the writer and highlight the

following: major strengths, major weaknesses, and the one specific thing they would recommend that the writer do to strengthen the piece.

7. The group moves on to discuss the next person’s draft.

Global Concerns

• Is the overall point being argued clear? Is there a single sentence that provides that point (the thesis)? Identify it. Is it stated effectively? Positioned effectively? What suggestions do you have that will help the writer strengthen the clarity of the point or the statement of the point?

• Is the essay well organized? Is it not just organized but well organized—with points

in a logical sequence that best supports the thesis and transitions that indicate the logic driving the order of the points? Is the essay appropriately organized—that is, has the topic been narrowed to use a Classical, Rogerian, or Motivational style appropriately given the topic and audience the argument is directed toward? Do



you understand what you are supposed to do or feel or think when you reach the end of the piece? If the answer to any of these questions is no, suggest ways that the author can improve the organization.

• Is the argument well developed? Does each development paragraph contain at least

one vivid image? Is the documentation clear? Do the supporting quotations and paraphrases accurately and fairly represent the sources from which they are drawn? Are they pertinent to the generalizations which they are supposed to illustrate? If the answer to any of these questions is no, suggest what sources in the text the writer might wish to use, clarify what the sources seemed to imply in the paper, or explain the logical gaps you see between specific details and generalizations.

Local Concerns

If time permits, discuss the sentence structure and the conventions of written English as needed.



Guidelines for Peer Critique

Do not begin with apologies or explanations for the quality of the draft. It is an acknowledged draft. Rather, spend your time noting whatever is working well and assisting each other to see what is weak about each draft and how the writer might strengthen the piece. OVERALL . . . 1. What do you perceive to be the major strength of the draft? Be specific. 2. Whom do you perceive as the audience for the piece? Be specific about what

knowledge and beliefs you feel the audience brings to this piece and what you believe the audience is supposed to do or think after reading the piece. (Addressing this question may help writers avoid “preaching to the converted.”)

GLOBAL CONCERNS 1. Does the writer have a thesis? Is it clear? Is it clearly stated? Paraphrase the thesis

for the writer. Is the rest of the piece patently related to the thesis? If there are any irrelevancies, point these out to the writer.

2. Are the paragraphs that develop the thesis arranged in an order that best supports

the thesis, or are they only in an arbitrary sequence? What order other than that provided might the writer try?

3. Is there at least adequate concrete support for the general assertions the writer

makes within each paragraph? Can you truly see what the writer is discussing, or are you coming up with your own images, sounds, or tastes? Suggest where the writer might insert more specific details or examples in order to have more than merely adequate development.

LOCAL CONCERNS 1. Are any sentences confusing? Grammatically unsound? Indicate these on your copy

of the writer’s draft. Would any sentences convey their ideas more clearly to readers if they were joined to other ones—usually short ones—next to them? Indicate these on your copy of the writer’s draft as well.

2. Are any words or punctuation marks confusing? Grammatically unsound? Indicate

these on your copy of the writer’s draft.



Discuss any of the local concerns that you feel the writer should understand to be better able to spot future glitches on his/her own.



Sample Assignments

The following are assignment prompts for a first essay and a last essay. The first essay asks students to analyze one of the famous arguments from Reading Cluster 9. The last essay asks students to research the topic of an earlier paper further, going beyond the text, for the final assignment of the term.



Analysis of a Famous Argument

For the first assignment, you are to analyze one of the selections in Reading Cluster 9, “Famous Arguments,” exclusive of the Swift selection, which we will analyze in class. Your analysis should identify the model of argument that the piece seems to use—Classical, Toulmin, or Rogerian. Identify the claim(s) that the piece makes and the types of support and appeals that the piece uses to augment its claim(s). Your analysis should include an assessment of the strengths of the argument—appropriateness of the support for the claim(s), appropriateness of the claim(s) and support for the intended audience, and so on. As part of your analysis, you might need to consider the validity and strength of the support, the warrants (implied or explicit), and the sort of language that the piece uses to establish its tone. In these matters you would also assess appropriateness. Remember that you ought to have a point to make about the piece as a whole so that your essay has its own thesis to support. You may find yourself making your assessment of the piece your thesis and therefore supporting your claim about the piece in the body of your essay by using your analyses of it. Recall that conclusions which merely summarize are useful for papers that deal with complex matters that are longer than six to eight pages. However, your conclusion for this essay should perhaps do something other than just summarize. (Review the section on conclusions in Chapter 1 if needed.) The essay you write may be as short as two pages or as long as five pages, depending on the selection you have chosen to analyze. Since this will be the first essay you submit for this class, you should regard it as a fact-finding exercise for you and me both. If you would be reluctant to show others your essay, or if you would not be proud to show others your essay, then revise it further before submitting it to me for assessment. Remember that it should be the result of your own work, from the beginning through the editing and proofreading stages. If you have any questions, make sure you ask me during office hours.



Argumentation Research Paper

Topic

You have three topics to choose from: those covered by Reading Clusters 1, 2, or 3. You have already written on at least two, if not all three, of these topics, so you should have a tentative position on whatever specific topic to which you had narrowed the subject of those umbrella headings. However, while writing those shorter papers, you also may have discovered that the material in the text was insufficient for fully exploring your narrowed topic. Now is your chance to do justice to that topic. The paper you will now write will not merely be a revising of that particular earlier paper but instead will be a true revisioning of the topic. You need to be open to modifying the position you took in that earlier paper if the research you uncover provides you with new information that counters a belief you had previously held. You also, though, may choose to narrow your subject to a new subtopic within the Cluster’s umbrella heading. Regardless of your approach, when you submit your final paper, you must submit the earlier paper along with this final paper. You should be aiming to produce a paper of around eight to twelve pages. You should have at least three, if not five, credible sources beyond The Well-Crafted Argument. Follow the documentation format appropriate to your major (e.g., MLA, APA, AAA). If you haven’t already told me your major, make sure that I know what it is.

Process

You have had a bit of time since you wrote that original paper to think about and to research your topic. Yes, you are also doing other work for this class and for your other classes, but this is not a new experience for college students. Be sure to apply the information provided in both Chapters 7 and 8 of The Well-Crafted Argument.

Key Dates

Week 10 Classes during which you might ask questions about the research paper Finals Week Research paper due in my office by the end of finals period



We hope that instructors have found this overview helpful. The rest of the Instructor’s Manual provides teachers with the “Goals” of the individual chapters, “Teaching Suggestions” for using the individual chapters in class, and “Suggested Answers to the Exercises” within the individual chapters. Now onwards—to choice!

Using the Reading Clusters

A Few Words about the Reading Clusters

In this part of the text are eight Reading Clusters of essays on particular controversial issues and one Reading Cluster of famous arguments. We know that nine clusters are too many for use in any one term by a class as a whole—even if the students and instructor devoted appropriate time to each issue and all the readings. However, we have deliberately provided this many so that instructors will have choices to determine what topics are best suited for their aims and for their students.

Discussion and Use

Each of the readings in the Clusters is followed by a series of questions that should help readers both check their comprehension and think a bit more deeply about the ideas presented. Instructors could discuss the selections sequentially, using these questions to work through the individual pieces within each Cluster. Those seeking suggestions for starting discussion of a Cluster as a whole are invited to consult the Web site associated with this text and go to the section on “Discussion Launchers.” The first eight Clusters present at least three possibilities for classroom use. • Some instructors prefer to select all the Clusters to be used during the term

themselves. Some may choose on the basis of their own interests and areas of expertise, e.g., those keenly attentive to the United States’ program for space exploration may wish to cover Cluster 4. Others may determine selections on the basis of topics that would be most useful for their students to consider critically at this point in their academic careers, such as whether science and religion are compatible (Cluster 5).

• Some instructors let students select their own topics for discussion and writing.

These instructors may assign the first Cluster, but they then ask students to vote on the other Clusters that will be used for the remainder of the term. (Because academic terms move quickly, instructors usually must choose at least the first Reading Cluster to be discussed.)

• A third possibility is for instructors to assign the first one or two Clusters for

general class discussion and then to have each group of students select a particular Cluster to work on for its own paper topics and presentations to the rest of the



class. In this case, students will not all be reading essays from the same Clusters, but over the term more Clusters will be used than in the other options.

These assignment choices depend on different factors—such as an instructor’s preferred style of classroom management, the goals of the class, or the kinds of students in the class. For example, the third option would be well suited for a writing course which included an oral component. Students would present their work to the rest of the class, perhaps in the form of a panel as suggested in the semester syllabus that includes symposia. However, no one format is necessarily better than the others nor suitable for all classes and all instructors. We encourage instructors to assess for themselves the approach that best suits their particular rhetorical situation—their audience, their purpose, their teaching style. The student essays included in each of the first eight Reading Clusters present additional material for discussion, providing an opportunity to examine the writing techniques of a student author as well as the subject of the Cluster. Instructors may want to use the student essays in each Cluster to illustrate how other students used the selections within the clusters to form their own positions on the issue, thus using the student essays as models. As is the case with any written piece, these student essays display weaknesses as well as strengths, so instructors can highlight those when appropriate for class discussion. Instructors may also ask students to determine the type of argument—Classical, Toulmin, or Rogerian—that the student writers have employed. An additional example student essay for each of the first eight Reading Clusters is available on the text’s Web site.

Writing Assignments

Instructors vary in the amount of direction they give to their students for writing topics, and students vary in the amount of direction they need. Here are three general ways in which instructors might assign essay topics based on the Reading Clusters: • Instructors may direct students to write position papers on the topics of the

Clusters, using class discussion and the readings within a given Cluster as their only resources.

• Instructors could use the “Connections Across the Clusters” section at the end of

each Cluster to encourage students to see how positions on an issue are affected by knowledge of and input from other controversial issues. In this case, students might use selections from two Reading Clusters as their resources.

• Instructors might ask students to research a topic beyond its coverage in a Reading

Cluster. Each Cluster is followed by suggestions for further reading, and the Web site associated with this text provides links to electronic sources for the first eight Reading Clusters. If instructors choose this approach, they may easily check on their students’ uses of sources beyond those available in the text.



The Ninth Reading Cluster

The ninth Reading Cluster, “Famous Arguments,” can similarly be tailored for use according to instructors’ assessment of their particular course needs. • Some instructors may find it useful to assign this Cluster after students have read

the first chapter so that they can see subjects about which people have argued through the ages and the ways in which they have presented their arguments.

• Other instructors may choose to use this Cluster after the class has read and

discussed the chapters on different ways of organizing arguments. They would then have students analyze each selection to determine how it employs the Classical, Toulmin, or Rogerian method of argument.

• Besides using the selections in this Cluster for class discussion, some instructors

may also choose to use them as pieces for students to analyze as their first writing assignment. This kind of first assignment can be a warm-up piece, one that helps students practice and begin honing their skills in reading, summarizing, and analyzing the arguments of others. Later in the course they will apply these skills when writing their own arguments on topics. The Web site associated with this text has an example of a writing prompt for this kind of assignment.

Instructors may want to linger on some of the selections in this Cluster. They may, for example, want to discuss Marvell’s “To His Coy Mistress” with their classes not only for its aesthetic pleasures but also for its demonstration of syllogistic reasoning. In addition, students can be assigned to note the various poetic responses to Marvell’s piece to demonstrate that even a poem which argues a point elicits responses in kind. In contrast to the immediately accessible topic Marvell’s poem presents, Jonathan Edwards’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” can provide instructors with the opportunity to discuss the cultural climate of New England in the 1700s—the greater influence of religion on the society of those times (more, some may say, than is seen in our times today). Such a discussion might dovetail nicely with the discussion prompted by Reading Cluster 5 (the compatibility of science and religion).

Concluding Thoughts

Most instructors will probably find themselves well able to discuss the subjects of these Reading Clusters—such as the uses of technology in education, standardized testing, censorship and book banning, and media violence. We hope, however, that instructors and students alike will find new information or insights in each section’s readings. We hope that you enjoy reading and discussing these essays, and we look forward to receiving your feedback.


GENERAL RESOURCES - Cengagecollege.cengage.com/.../white/argument/1e/instructors/irm/general.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of GENERAL RESOURCES - Cengagecollege.cengage.com/.../white/argument/1e/instructors/irm/general.pdf ·...