Purpose: (1) To reinforce your knowledge of concepts from the course. (2) To assess your understanding of concepts. (3) To give you experience applying concepts related to argumentation and critical thinking. (4) To give you experience explaining ideas. (5) To develop your ability to make arguments.
Assignment: Turn in an essay that meets the requirements indicated for each of the "Entries" described below. You'll turn in one entry early in the semester, and the others throughout the semester. See the tentative schedule for the due dates.
Each entry is to be an example of a concept from the class to something you actually encounter in your everyday life. The concepts you are to use for each entry are indicated below. If you have trouble coming up with entries you should start looking in newspapers and news magazines.
In each entry you must (1) identify the concept
you're using, (2) explain, in your own words the argumentative
concept or critical thinking issue from class, (3) describe the
incident, and (4) apply the concept by explaining how the example
illustrates the concept, or by evaluating how well the concept
was used in original incident. An outline of an entry might look
like:
|
NAME OF CONCEPT EXPLANATION: Explain, in your own words, what the concept means. Do not just copy the definition from the text, and do not just change the wording a little. Explain it as if you're trying to help a younger brother or sister understand the concept. Generally, the better explanations say what the concept means, what the concept doesn't mean, how it differs from similar concepts (when appropriate), and provides a hypothetical example to clarify the meaning. INCIDENT: Describe the incident in sufficient detail that someone who didn't observe it would have a good idea of what happened. Direct quotations of what was said or written will be better than summaries. If the argument comes from a published or broadcast source, provide a complete source citation. If the incident is a short, published work you can photocopy it or tape it to another page and include the whole thing. APPLICATION: Explain how the incident illustrates the concept or evaluate the incident, depending on the instructions for the entry. |
As you write each entry, remember that your purpose should be to demonstrate that you understand the concept. The explanation of how each incident illustrates each concept is extremely important, and it is your burden to demonstrate your knowledge.
For the entries that call for you to evaluate, you should apply one set of principles in your evaluation; you don't need to evaluate using every possible principle. For example, the entry for chapter 9 could evaluate the evidence using either the "Tests of Evidence" or "Perella's Hierarchy of Evidence," but you shouldn't use both because that would be way too much to ask of you.
You should also note that this assignment requires you to make brief arguments. Your claim is that each example fits the concept you say it fits, or that the evaluation is correct, and the rest of what you write should support that claim.
Evaluation: This assignment will be evaluated on: (1) the accuracy of what you say about the concepts, (2) fully describing each incident, (3) the quality of your explanations applying the concepts to the incidents or the quality of your evaluations, (4) making clear that each incident really happened, (5) the quality of your writing, and (6) following instructions.
Each entry worth up to 10 points. This assignment must be e-mailed to jgv1@humboldt.edu. Be sure it is the body of the message, not an attachment. See the tentative schedule for the date this assignment is due.
The work you submit for this assignment may be used as future course material unless you ask that it not be used. Do not write anything that you wouldn't want others to read without letting me know that you'd prefer it not be shared.
The following is the basic rubric that I will use to evaluate each entry:
| Explanation
of the concept: 0 to 3 points .....no clear explanation = 0 points .....explanation substantially copied from the text = 1 point .....clear, accurate explanation in your own words = 2 to 3 points Example: 0 to 4 points .....vague and brief = 1 point .....detailed and specific = 2 to 4 points .....appears to be made up = 0 points Explanation of how the example fits the concept or evaluation: 0 to 3 points .....no explanation = 0 points .....assertion = 1 point .....full argument = 2 to 3 points Adjustments .....hard to read because of writing problems = minus 1 to 2 points .....example doesn't really fit = minus 1 to 3 points .....explanation of concept incorrect = minus 1 to 2 points .....explanation is incomplete = minus 1 point .....documented source with verbatim argument = plus one point .....not following format (typed, double spaced, separating the entries, etc. = minus 1 point .....work that goes beyond the expectations for full credit for an entry = variable additions |
When you use examples from conversations the general way you meet the standard that they not be made up is by providing sufficient detail. Include who is talking to whom, the context of the conversation, what was said as close to verbatim as you can, and any other details to help create the impression the incident actually happened.
Remember that this is to be submitted in the body of an e-mail, and each entry must be in a separate e-mail. To attain higher scores you should take the time to develop each section more than a couple of sentences.
4A. Chapter 1: Explain what the term argument means, describe a specific occasion when you either made or engaged in an argument and explain why the argument was good or bad, or strong or weak, etc. based on your own criteria for evaluation.
4B. Chapter 2: Explain what critical thinking is, describe a specific occasion when you used critical thinking or would have benefited by thinking more critically, and explain why it would be considered critical thinking.
4C. Chapter 3: Explain what the arguer as a rapist, or seducer, or harasser is. Then describe an example when someone argued that way and explain what you could have done differently to argue as a lover.
4D. Chapter 12: Explain what discriminative listening is, describe a specific example of discriminative listening you have done and explain why it was discriminative listening.
4E. Chapter 12: Explain what evaluative listening is, describe a specific example of evaluative listening you have done and explain why it was evaluative listening.
4F. Chapter 13: Explain what dyadic argument is, describe a specific example of a dyadic argument you engaged in and evaluate the argument according to principles in the text.
4G. Chapter 14: Explain what communication rules are, describe a group you are a member of (other than the group for this class), describe the communication rules of that group and explain what makes them communication rules.
4H. Chapter 7: Choose one of the types of reasoning, explain what it is, describe a specific example of that types of reasoning and evaluate the strength of the reasoning according to the principles in the text.
4I. Chapter 9: Explain what evidence is, describe a specific example of evidence used in an argument and evaluate it according to the principles in the text appropriate for evaluating that kind of evidence.
4J. Chapter 10: Explain what and inference or report or judgement is, describe a specific example of the use of that type of language used in an argument and explain why the statement fits that category.
4K. Chapter 11: Explain what refutation is, describe a specific example of an argument that refutes another argument and evaluate it according to principles in the text.
