Rhetoric. Invention. Aristotle wrote much about it; his
thoughts are still argued, mulled over, used, or ignored. He was not the first,
and will not be the last. But what exactly is it? Janice M. Lauer explains the
three primary Greek interpretations of rhetoric or “invention.” Her research
suggests that Sophists focused on the early parts of any discourse known as “Kairos”
or the opportune moment, and believed in the “dissoi logoi” or arguing for both
sides of an argument. Plato instead, emphasized the “inventional” role of dialogue
but numerous reviewers remain undecided about his reasons as well as his
epistemology. Aristotle developed the most explicit theory of “invention” in
the Rhetoric providing a clear
conception of its nature and his view of its purpose.
Though most agree that for the Sophists, conflict
triggered the discourse, the question remains—did Kairos (opportune moment)
control the discourse or did the discourse control Kairos? That opportune
moment should prove something right or wrong; the concept of dissoi logoi
(arguing on behalf of both sides) displays the powerful effects of rhetoric as
an art of persuasion with potential for disastrous effects, if held in the
wrong hands. Because of differing opinions on both Kairos and dissoi logoi,
Lauer affirms that there remains controversy among a lengthy list of scholars
as to aspects of rhetoric or “invention.”
Between the mythos/ beliefs and the logos/ discourse
there lies the nomos or “that which is assigned.” This exemplifies thinking
strategies of the rhetoricians during Greece’ Golden Age. Their goal: “…a
self-conscious arrangement of discourse to create politically and socially
significant knowledge” (16). Plato’s views of invention illustrate rather than
systemize topics while Aristotle delineates inventional issues, strategies, and
principles for analyzation of discourse. He also prompts the rhetor to find
appropriate content, and frame the rhetorical epistemology, aided by the
enthymeme or “body of proof.” Scholars argue effectively, on rhetoric’s art,
use, and validity. Their discourse proves their
truths through invention.
Similar methods of looking at multiple perspectives are evidenced
by Kathleen Blake Yancey as she questions herself, her teaching approaches, the
importance of reflection, and the methods course. Opening with her concerns,
she theorizes about how she can most effectively run a Methods Course, and which
practices work best for her students “who-will-be-teachers.” She also hopes to bridge
the gap between these by using reflection-in-action to shape her model as she
helps students become teachers who learn with their students.
Yancey defines reflective transfer as: “the procedure
that enables us to learn from and theorize our practice” (235). Its four steps
are clarified simply: observation and examination of one’s practice, hypothesis
regarding ones successes and failures, planning the next attempt using all one
has learned, and finally, starting over. Through this exercise, teachers can begin
to grasp how students learn, and which assignments prove beneficial to that
process. Results place one on the path of thinking like and becoming that
future teacher.
Reflection in this context becomes collaborative; Yancey
plans and delivers the lessons that her students experience. Through this
process they connect. She knows this transfer of knowledge may result in
something other than her original intent, but that will provide new
insights—collaborative learning—to their methods class. Her implementation of
reflection throughout this course offers numerous contexts to encourage and
inspire learning.
The
focus is to shape her course as the most effective tool for this diverse group
of students, hoping to soon be teachers. The two aspects of development she
addresses are helping prospective teachers see their prospective students as both like and unlike them, and
helping those “almost-teachers” explain their own learning process thus enabling them to better teach and direct their students learning skills in the
near future.
Yancey
speaks of invention, not for the purpose of rhetoric or discourse, but through a
process called cubing to reveal the many perspectives of any subject. Her
lesson is unique and inspired as she gives them the opportunity to “invent”
their model classroom, complete with students. She asks them to decide who
these “students” are, how they will cooperate and also, how they will resist. This
process requires thought, reflection, honesty, and the applied insight from the
cubing exercise.
The
exercise of literary analysis forces students to think and react like teachers
as they study a high school student, “Ryan’s” portfolio. Guided by simple
questions, the students supply more than enough responses. According to Yancey,
they did what she does for every student: “read the data, reflect upon it, make
meaning” (241). Differing feedback, interpretations, and recommendations
evidence each student’s position on their journey to become the “teacher.”
Leaving
behind the role of student to become “the teacher” is discussed by Yancey.
Perceiving her students concern about this transition, she points out that
“good teachers are always students” (242). Yancey reminds them that teachers
are working in communion through many worthwhile venues, like the NWP and NCTE
towards clearer student understanding, enrichment, and to insure that the circle
of learning never ends.
Yancey
has students work in groups for a non-graded curriculum project which requires
different thinking, strategies, and seeing themselves as learners. She stops
them midway and has them implement “reflection-in-action” using three simple
questions: How’s it going, what’s left, and what are you learning? The
reactions differ as each student offers their perspective, but Yancey can assess
individual progress through these replies. They have learned about voicing
opinions, the sequence of texts to goals, and the flow of knowledge through
timing and directions. Mostly, they have started to think like teachers, which
was the original intent.
Finally,
Yancey gives her class questions to ponder that may help them further move into
the role of teacher. She reminds us of the two questions with which she began
her “reflective quest” and reviews the success of the semester’s exercises.
Because reflection-in-action worked well she hopes to unearth a link from this
to reflective teaching in the future. She believes teaching the course
reflectively will create knowledge. Yancey always strives for improvements as
she reflects on her teaching practices. She reminds us that when reflection
works it not only answers questions but creates many more. But that is what learning is all about, isn’t it?
1. Rhetoric
is the art of persuasion and, effectively used, can bring an audience to
believe—or disbelieve—almost anything; good and truthful to bad or evil. Grasping
the power of this art, and given the role of educator, how might one use this
powerful tool for the best possible results in a classful of impressionable
writing students?
2. Yancey
is notably pleased with her students’ ability to articulate their learning
experience through metaphors. Their
unexpected use of figures of speech indicate to Yancey, “…a developmental mark
of teacher identity formation” (239). Why do you think she feels this way? Do you think this is a deciding indication
of readiness?
3. Yancey
uses reflection effectively in many aspects, and encourages her students to do
the same. She implements it into her exercises and classwork to enable this
process to reach some level of success. She now wants to teach reflectively,
tying it in with reflection-in-action. In your opinion(s), can this be done and
might it create a better learning experience for both Yancey and her students?
No comments:
Post a Comment