[Previous entry: "Spim"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "fuzzy"]

03/02/2004 Archived Entry: "spim II"

Let me add to my little bit below on spim and spam:
An email just arrived from a textbook rep. It directed me to the website of the latest online version of St. Martin's Guide to Writing. Here's an isolated frame from the collaborative activities section. An excerpt:

To construct an effective argument, you must assert a position and offer support for it.

Part 1: Get together with two or three other students and choose an issue. Agree together to argue for the same position on the issue, whether you personally agree with the position or not. Write down the issue and position like this:

Issue. Should grades be abolished?
Position. Grades should be abolished.
· Take ten to fifteen minutes to construct an argument for your position, giving several reasons and noting the kinds of support you would need.
· Try to anticipate one or two of the arguments people with other views on the issue could make, including objections to your argument and reasons for their positions.

To me, that kind of teaching is pedagogical spam. What is to be learned from such an exercise other than regurgitation of commonplace tropes and ideas? Should grades be abolished. Should abortion be legal? Should smoking be allowed in public places. Should should should should should...WHO CARES? Why do such textbooks reduce argumentation to should/should not and why do they repeat the same mindless drivel?

Every textbook that repeats such rubbish is committing pedagogical spam. Can we get the FCC/MLA/CCCC to step in here and start cracking down? I need a textbook spam blocker in place.