Learning to Argue Fruitfully

            The idea that peer writing criticism can involve students “learning to argue fruitfully” (390) appeals to me immensely. Holt’s emphasis on teaching discourse skills in conjunction with the content of classes is refreshing, as I can recall numerous courses in which these lessons were overlooked, even when the approach was touted as “discussion-based.” It has become a large part of the way I justify studying literature—the better we are at telling stories eloquently and arguing persuasively, the more impactful we can be. It excites me to realize that helping to foster fruitful arguments will be part of our role as writing consultants. In fact, Holt’s model strikes me as cumbersome for the classroom, with intended results perhaps better achieved in a writing consultation.

            The process Holt suggests makes sense in theory. Students engage in written dialogue, with each step of the process documented for reflection and for the instructor’s observation. In practice, though, I’m skeptical about its efficacy. In my experience, students tend to run for cover when they hear the phrase “small groups” during class. Particularly in an introductory class, when a professor instructs students to engage in a written dialogue, I would expect few of them to take the conversation seriously. The dilemma here echoes that of Perry’s “My Teacher Hates Me!”—students engaging in a forced, insincere dialogue because their professor will assign them a grade for it. I do not mean to suggest that some students will not be genuinely engaged, but it seems naïve to expect that simply assigning and grading a conversation will be enough to facilitate a genuine one. Holt’s approach seems particularly convoluted, her six-step method coming off more as numbing busy work than an effective classroom strategy.

            One professor who I think handles this extremely well is Dr. Outka, in the English Department. In a 300-level class last semester, she had a draft due for every paper and encouraged us to revise thoroughly before turning in the final version. For each paper, she assigned us to peer critique groups. We wrote commentaries similar to those we provide as writing consultants, then we met outside of class to discuss our reactions. This meeting was crucial to the assignment’s success. Rather than forcing us into an awkward written dialogue, Dr. Outka allowed us to hold a genuine discussion, on our own time and on our own terms. As Holt suggests, such an approach would not succeed in an introductory classroom. For a more advanced setting, though, Dr. Outka’s approach seems ideal. She read and graded our written commentaries, but left it to our revisions to reflect the feedback’s effectiveness and the depth of our discussion. If we had gone through Holt’s entire process, I think most of us would have felt stifled, underestimated, and thus less motivated to exchange our genuine thoughts.

            With an approach like Dr. Outka’s working well in upper-level courses, the introductory classroom would need a method of its own. Holt’s approach would likely yield an even more inauthentic, playing-the-professor’s-game kind of dialogue here than in an advanced setting. Many students are still discovering what an engaging intellectual dialogue entails, and it does not seem that being graded on their unsatisfactory attempts is the best way to help them progress. Rather, I suggest that meetings with writing consultants might be a better setting for students to learn how to argue fruitfully than any that a professor can construct in the classroom. Writing consultants walk a thin line, of course, between presenting opposing views constructively and introducing real tension into the conversation. They can serve, though, to both model and encourage the kind of fruitful arguing Holt suggests, for students who might flounder to achieve it in a group on their own. With the conversation occurring outside of class, without a grade, students will feel more at ease, and the kind of discourse they practice will feel more fully integrated into their own real lives. Holt’s peer group model might still be valuable, but I think writing consultations are the best way for students to get their feet into the parlor door.