He argues, then, for an argument-based ecocomposition course. “A course based on argument as inquiry should focus on reasoning and critical thinking rather than on specific persuasive techniques. The goal of such a pedagogy is to assist students in creating arguments that are relevant to them and to their audience…It is obvious that teachers must play a guiding role in this process. There must be a subject about which to inquire. If a teacher is interested in ecology, for example. The human relationship to the mean-than-human world is as suitable as any” (272).
Sumner discusses three kinds of ecology “composition” courses: “environmental studies courses with a strong writing component, environmental literature courses with an emphasis on the skill necessary to writing about literature, and composition courses with environmental readings that employ a ‘mode’ theory of composition” (mode = narrative, compare and contrast, etc.) (266). Sumner takes issue with each kind of course because it does not focus on composition. “If ecocomposition’s purpose is to help our students to imagine, reason, and judge in the medium of writing – if its goal is to introduce our students to the project of academic inquiry – I submit that we must design source that we call ‘ecocomposition’ according to this stated purpose” (266). This is particularly important because composition is the only course every student is required to take, so we need a strong justification for this requirement. Sumner finds the first kind of course troublesome because they do not “concentrate heavily enough on the rhetorical skills of written reasoning to fulfill the more general goal of composition. Environmentalism studies is the main focus in these courses, with the assumption that the skills of written reasoning will be developed along the way” (268). His issue with the second kind of course can easily “become less about the student’s attempt to learn how to writing meaningful arguments that function for them as primary rhetoric and more about the very specific experience of literature” (269). The third course is trouble because it carries forward an acontextual understanding of writing. It also partitions argument as a specific kind of writing, but Sumner believes that all writing is argumentative. Particularly, he argues that argument is meant to persuade, but it is also meant for inquiry. So, “the object of argument is to discover the best available means of persuasion [and] argument is no longer about winning; it is instead about learning” (272)
He argues, then, for an argument-based ecocomposition course. “A course based on argument as inquiry should focus on reasoning and critical thinking rather than on specific persuasive techniques. The goal of such a pedagogy is to assist students in creating arguments that are relevant to them and to their audience…It is obvious that teachers must play a guiding role in this process. There must be a subject about which to inquire. If a teacher is interested in ecology, for example. The human relationship to the mean-than-human world is as suitable as any” (272).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Tags
All
|