In "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue" Deborah Tannen offers an alternative to the prevailing notion of argument in our culture. As you prepare to discuss her article, consider the following questions:
1. What surprised you as you read?
2. What did you already know about this subject?
3. What did you learn from the article?
4. How does the article reflect your own experience?
5. How does Tannen model the kind of discourse she values?
In one entry of about a paragraph, respond to two or three of the questions, but definitely respond to question 5. Then, in a second entry, respond to one of your classmates. We will use the blog responses to shape our discussion on Tuesday.
After reading Deborah Tannen’s article "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue" I was surprised by several things. The differences between Western cultures as opposed to the cultures of India and China with regards to different approaches to education was baffling. On one hand, Western cultures are more abrasive with learning and therefore their “approach to knowledge tends to be conceived as a metaphorical battle” (Tannen 259); moreover, the Chinese approach to education “was exposition rather than argument” (Tannen 258). Furthermore, I learned from the article that because America favors debate and brusque words there is a price to be paid. The issue surrounding our argumentative culture is that such contentious behavior “sets the tone for how individuals experience their relationships to other people” (Tannen 280). Such aggression that is displayed everyday in America has a high cost, and it is a cost that may not be easily paid. Tannen is a model to the kind of discourse she writes about by offering a solution to implementing less debate and heated aggression within out society by stating that “it is time to question our glorification of debate as the best, if not the only, means of inquiry” (Tannen 289). She also offers a compromise by saying that in moving away from a debate-like environment, people do not need to completely abandon disagreements altogether, but instead people need to expand the ways in which they disagree with others.
ReplyDeleteTannen's article really challenged the way I have always viewed debate and discussion. Throughout high school, when I have written papers, we were always encouraged to pick one distinct side, and, through a classroom debate, point out why the other side was "wrong". I realized that I was taught to be a part of what Tannen refers to as the "culture of critique" (257). In addition, the ways in which Tannen tied together the modern views of debate were very thought-provoking. It made perfect sense that she claimed the way we approach discussion is rooted in the ways of the military, as there is only one "winner" in every war. Ultimately, I admired the way Tannen expressed her view, by explaining that we need not simply blame the other side. Instead, she explains, it is wiser to examine all facets of an issue. Instead of looking for right and wrong, Tannen suggests we look for the new and different.
ReplyDeleteI found many things interesting after reading the Tannen article. One of those things was that women "receive less attention and speak up less" (261). I would have thought that women receive more attention. Women are less likely to participate in "discussions that are framed as arguments between opposing sides"(262). Also what I found interesting is how classrooms in Germany and France are more debate orientated than in America. I agree with Tannen when she says "we need more than one path to the goal we seek" (276). But we naturally turn to debate because we are taught to always find something wrong. I found it neat that Japanese talk shows try and stay away from having two guests, so they aren't opposing each other. Instead they have one or three or more guests.
ReplyDeleteIn my own experience if I remember correctly in my United Nations class when would have a debate the men did participate more than the women.
Deborah Tannen's article "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue" addressed a variety of different approaches of education and culture that came off as relatively surprising and compelling to me. Until addressed in the article, I had never really took the time to analyze the atmosphere of the classroom. After reading Tannen's perspective it really opened my eyes up to the type of environment we learn in and the effect it has on us as students. In the west, specifically originating from the Greeks, debate is the key foundation of learning and critique/aggression is practiced. Students in this region were not taught to figure out the truth but rather argue one side of a point. On the other hand, "Disputation was rejected in ancient China as "incompatible with the decorum and harmony cultivated by the true sage"(Tannen 258). This initiated a more laid back environment where a student was capable of integrating an idea and exploring their relations. The significant contrast in learning methods strongly highlights the different kind of cultures all over the world and was extremely interesting to take a deeper look into. In the article, Tannen models the kind of discourse she values by putting emphasis on not talking about "both sides" of an issue, but rather talking about "all sides". She believes that comparing two cultures pushes the debate format because students polarize them and think of them as opposites-- ultimately comparing/contrasting the two. Tannen states that if three cultures are compared it is much more likely that students will separate the terms and think about them as separate variables.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue, I was surprised that Tannen and I made some of the same connections to learning. For example, I feel more comfortable sharing my opinion when the professor and other classmates “let the comments go unchallenged” (p. 264). To me, it is very uncomfortable when a student disagrees with my ideas and proves why he or she is more right. This reflects my own experience in an art class I am currently taking. The professor asked why I (an accounting major) was interested in taking a painting class. I told him I thought it would be fun and different than what I am used too. He sort of laughed at my response and kept asking me more questions, to which my face became redder and redder from embarrassment. I will not be giving my honest opinion in that class anymore! I liked that Tannen notes this in her article, and understands the importance of helping students, especially women, feel at ease in the classroom. Tannen models her discourse by “not [putting] a stop to the… doubting game, debate- but to diversify” (p.276). A debate usually implies two sides, but what about the details in between the two concepts? By presenting material this way, it is more likely that students will speak their voice. This will lead to a better learning environment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is in response to Lisa Vassallo's post. Lisa, in high school I was given the same type of assignment time after time. Pointing out all sides of the argument "weakened" our approach. Thus, only one view was to be presented. I think Tannen would want us to be challenged more and research both sides, in a nonjudgemental way.
ReplyDeleteThe Deborah Tannen article, "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue," surprised me in many ways. I noticed the article discussed how many times male and female students spoke in class. It shocked me that males were found to speak more in class than females. I was surprised because in our society, females are usually thought of as "talkers" and males don't normally say anything or debate. "The males, on the other hand, openly questioned, criticized, and refuted the readings on five separate occasions" (Tannen 262). This reference points out that males may be a bit more aggressive than females when it comes to debating in a class. In this article, I definitely learned that debate varies with cultures. In America, we frequently debate with two sides, and end up polarizing them because we consider the ideas to be opposite of each other (Tannen 285). On the other hand, in Japan, people debate with all sides, seeing every point to each idea instead of just two opposites. Tannen does an excellent job at displaying the different roles of debate, whether it be varied in cultures or gender, she makes a valid point of her findings. I very much respect her ideas on this issue and she has done an outstanding job proving them. Tannen is a model to the kind of discourse she values by supplying people with ways to go about debating. She explains how to make a point and support it without aggression or verbal attack. She has provided people with solutions to work out their problems in a dignified and appropriate manner.
ReplyDeleteThis is a response to Kim Martin's post. Kim, I completely agree with you about how we turn to debate because we are taught to find something wrong all the time. Our society has taught us to focus on the flaws of an idea and not to see the other sides of it. We're always sort of drawn to the defects of a situation rather than seeing another side of it. I think that is why Tannen displays various ways of debating so that we can learn to argue our opinions differently, but still be open to see the other sides of an idea.
ReplyDeleteFrom this article I learned that there is really no such thing as a right or wrong side to an argument. Those who do pick a side are only provoking the opposing side to make themselves seem more stronger or "powerful." As well, I learned that in different parts of the world their beliefs in education varied. I never knew in school "that girls often receive less attention and speak up less in class." (Tannen 261)I feel as though as women we are being undermined as a gender by thoughts such as "(women) dared challenge or refute." (Tannen 263) Tannen models the kind of discourse she values by teaching her readers that not everything has a right or wrong side but rather to listen to both sides of the argument to gain insight. She shows how people believe that asking "tough questions" (Tannen 267) shows authority. She displays to us to that instead of asking whats wrong with this paper or article instead ask whats right with it.
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to Lindsay's comment. I completely agree with what you and Tannen said about having three or more sides to compare. With just two sides, it makes things very black and white, but with more aspects, a much larger gray area appears for us to explore.
ReplyDeleteThis is a response to Jenna Mulcahy's post. I definitely agree with you when it comes to men being more aggressive when it comes to debating. It seems like any chance to show authority they will take. I also like that fact that you pointed out how women are supposed to be talkative but yet when it comes to debating we stand in silence. I like your explanation of how Tannen models her values by showing us how to debate in a less agressive way. She shows us that we shouldnt verbally attack someones view just for the sake of it
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to Lauren Shimanski DesRoches post. I agree that we should look for what is right with a paper instead of what is wrong. Everyone should listen to both sides and just learn from what both parties have to say. You could come up with your own opinion between both sides. Every side will have its pros and cons but you don't always have to disagree completely.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Tannen's article, it caused me to think about the topic of debating and whether or not it is an effective way of teaching in a classroom. She states "only a few students are participating in the debate, the majority of the class is sitting silently...".(Tannen 256) When i stopped and thought about it, this is a very accurate description of how my high school classes looked during a debate. There were those one or two students that were very interested, actively arguing with one another throughout the debate while the rest of the class sat quietly daydreaming, staring at a wall. Tannen also adresses how students were trained not to discover the truth, but to argue either side of an argument. (Tannen 258) This is exactly what i was told by my high school teachers. When we were given a topic to write about, the teacher would say to take either side of the argument, but not the middle road. She said how it would be much tougher to get your point across to the reader and make your paper less effective. I agree with Tannen when she says how we need to be open to hearing the other side of the argument before we jump to conclusions. This way we obtain more insight to the other side of the argument before we put it down. In her article, Tannen models the discourse she values by telling her readers different ways to go about debating as opposed to saying there is only one effective way to debate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is in response to Leanne Goodwin’s post. With regards to what you said about how “a debate usually implies two sides,” I agree with the questions you raised. I feel as though many debates within classrooms and other settings are expected to be black and white and clear-cut, but as you stated, what about the gray area in between the two concepts? Most of life’s issues and questions of morality are not black or white, so discussions about them should not be treated as such. Without such a caustic and abrasive environment, learning would be better facilitated.
ReplyDeleteWhat surprised me about Deborah Tannen's article is also something that I learned from the article. The idea that stuck out to me the most was idea of having three different research topics instead of only two. The reason for doing this is because when someone has to compare two subjects they're naturally going to end up contrasting them as polar opposites to show their differences. In many cases people use three sides in a debate to keep from just the two polar sides. I had never thought of this because thats how I was always used to debates in my experience. After reading about that though, I realized how true that was when comparing two subjects. It makes you think much more by adding that third party because you can see what is similar but also what is different amongst the three instead of what they have that are opposite of each other. This set up for a debate creates a very different way of thinking, a more worldly way of thinking. It prevents those in the debate from becoming too provincial which is very different from my experience with debates in high school. Tannen believes though that we should move away from debate as the main source of knowledge because we rely on it too heavily. Debate has become who is wrong or right now instead of the two sides trying to find what is new and learning something that they didn't know before.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is in response to Lloyd's response. I agree that America has become very two-sided in its debates and I believe it starts with our government and politicians. Those in politics nowadays pick a side that they think will get the most votes and popularity and then do whatever they can to just prove the other side wrong. You would never hear a politician say to another politician during a debate yeah you're right because they're main focus is to make the other guy look bad instead of finding better ideas. We look up to our politicians and government to the point that they're idolized so I think thats where that argumentative attitude is coming from.
ReplyDeleteDeborah Tannen’s article titled “The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue” changed my outlook on debate completely. Tannen goes about trying to illustrate debate as a tool for expanding knowledge. This notion is very different from what I believed to be the point of debate. As a teenager in the typical classroom setting, debates were common happenings. Tannen states that students learn to “disprove others’ arguments in order to be original, make a contribution, and demonstrate their intellectual ability” (269). This is exceptionally true of my previous experience with debate. In high school, grades for debates were based on the criteria of one’s argument, but also on who could disprove a contrary argument to the fullest extent. This consequently developed a student body with “a need to make others wrong” (268). This method produced a sea of young adults who only viewed debates as a way of disproving others and proving their own arguments; it was not viewed as a way of learning and seeing another side to an argument. Therefore, we resolved to “ignoring facts that support [the] opponent’s views, and focus only on those that support yours” (269). This statement made me rethink everything I know about debates. It allowed me to realize that the flaws others see in my own argument may actually be of value to another argument, and may even present ideas I would have never previously investigated. Tannen models the discourse she values by depicting new and alternative ways to view the material presented in debates; she presents opposition and evidence as learning tools for all participants, regardless of each person’s stance.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sam's comment, I agree that adding a third party to an argument is a terrific idea. It is very common when only two parties are involved to contrast the two as "what is right vs. what is wrong". By adding the additional view, the contrast is then modeled into the questions "what evidence supports certain ideas and what contradicts them?," as well as "what knowledge can we contribute to any of the given positions?". The addition of another person to any debate strongly suppresses the urge to fight opposition in effort to prove your point, and instead causes collaboration and exchange of ideas between all parties.
ReplyDeleteAs I read Tannen’s article, the most surprising thing to me was the different ways of teaching in the Western society and China. “Chinese philosophy sees a diverse universe in precarious balance that is maintained by talk. This translates into methods of investigation that focus more on integrating ideas and exploring relations among them than on opposing ideas and fighting over them” (Tannen 258). The Western culture is rooted in the military, causing western society to be more argumentative. Another thing that surprised me was how much non-constructive criticism is given at graduate school. Tannen wrote of a scholar that presented her research to faculty and fellow students. After presenting her work, the faculty attacked it and criticized it. She ended up dropping out of graduate school, along with others who are not used to this environment. It is troublesome to think that some students feel the need to drop out of graduate school due to non-constructive criticism. Due to the pressure and environment in graduate school, schools may be losing very bright students that could have been an asset to their field of study. This article relates to my personal experience in school, because in my sophomore year in high school my American Studies class held many debates. During the debates primarily males spoke while the females sat back quietly. I find it very interesting that males have a more argumentative personality compared to females. Tannen models the kind of discourse she values by explaining and discussing the various types of discourse, without attacking any of them. She also discusses how debating can break people down and how it is not as efficient as learning new things on both sides of an argument.
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to Katelynn Doiron. I agree with what you said about people viewing debates as ways to prove their argument, and disprove others. People in our society do not like to be wrong, so they stick to their ideas, and will fight until the other side gives up. People are not very willing to look at a different side, or think about both and expand on their ideas. Tannen said that in China and India, “the aim was to ‘enlighten an inquirer,’ not to ‘overwhelm an opponent’"(Tannen 258). Society today should look at debates as ways of learning new ideas, rather than an argument to win.
ReplyDeleteAs I read Deborah Tannen’s article “The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue” one idea struck me and surprised me the most. This was the idea that students are set up for one-sided thought and debate early on in their careers. As stated in the article, a young boy took a piece of lava to school for show and tell. Upon sharing the rock the teacher took a more informational approach and began to question the young boy on “information about the rock that has meaning out of context” (Tannen 260). The teacher questions the young boy because it teaches him how to “share and think formally” (Tannen 260). When I was in elementary school and I brought in my most prized possession I never thought for one minute that my teacher was setting me up to “talk in a focused, explicit way” (Tannen 261). This information from the article shows how deep our roots really are when it comes to debate and that we learn the essence of it early on in life. The article also gives an interesting commentary on how girls speak up less in class. I find this topic to be more pertinent to my life today. In our American Studies class my junior year of high school I found that one particular group of males always dominated the discussion and had to counteract everything anyone else said. I was always the girl who sat quietly and took in what everyone else had said, absorbing it like a sponge. Tannen points out in her article that if you go back to childhood again you will find that the young boys had more opportunities to “challenge and argue with authority figures” (Tannen 265). Tannen makes a great point that many of the characteristics to debate that an individual gains throughout their life have arisen in early childhood through schooling and other authority figures. Tannen is a model of the kind of discourse she values because she writes about the solutions to debate and how “to make dialogue more constructive between people with differing views” (Tannen 288). She also says that by limiting your viewpoint to one particular side you “reject much that is true” (Tannen 290).
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kim Martin, I also agree with what Deborah Tannen said, “we need more than one path to the goal we seek" (276). I think that we naturally turn to debate because these characteristics of debate have been thrust upon us as children through times like show and tell. Tannen quotes a colleague who said, “I don’t have to make others wrong to prove I’m right” (289). When someone limits their point of view they decide to not look at the truth on both sides and by doing so they become ignorant but by evening a conversation out with three people debate can sometimes be avoided at all costs.
ReplyDeleteDeborah Tannen’s article titled “The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue” completely changed my outlook on debate. Growing up, I always that the goal of a debate is to prove the other person completely wrong and come out victorious. Deborah Tannen says that in both China and India that "the aim was to enlighten an inquirer, not to overwhelm an opponent"(Tannen, 258). Tannen is saying that we are encourage to debate to enlighten someone or change their perspective not to completely destroy the other person's perspective. Debate is a tool used by teachers to obtain more knowledge and expand our thinking on a topic. The article reflects my own experience by saying that men are more aggressive in debates. Back when I was in elementary school in seventh grade, my teacher chose a topic in which the class divided into two groups. The groups were those who were for and those who were against. As the debate started, it seemed that the girls started to edge towards the back of the group to try to avoid discussing their views. The boys were going back and forth against in each other arguing their points while the girls just watched. My experience goes right along with Deborah Tannen when she says that "that women students may be less likely to take part in classroom discussions that are framed as arguments between opposing sides" (Tannen, 262). Tannen models the kind of discourse she values by saying there are many ways in order to debate. We should not completely close the door on a perspective because then we would only be thinking one sided. Deborah Tannen says we should be open to others ideas and willing to hear their sides.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Deborah Tannen's article "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue" I was surprised by a few things, but one really caught my attention. James Wertsch, a researcher, elaborates on "sharing time" in elementary school. He says that this time is a prime area for formal representation of knowledge. Teachers of lower grades ask questions during show-and-tell that focus on formal education, and the children don't know it. They also ask these certain questions to help the child talk in a "focused, explicit way". When I was in elementary school and we did "sharing time" I never thought of it this way, I didn't think it was educational at all most of the time. Deborah Tannen models the kind of discourse she values by saying that society should have less debate. Most of the time when people debate, there is a lot of tension and putting each other down. She thinks that we should move away from this time of environment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is in response to Sam's response. Adding a third point of view in a debate is a great idea. No one wants to be wrong in a debate so they will do whatever they can to embaress and prove their opponent wrong. Ecspecially in education I think it is important to either add a third party or not use debating as a learning method. As Sam mentioned, a third party can show what is similar as well as what is different, but two parties only show the polar opposites.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the Deborah Tannen article, "The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue”, there was one thing that caught my attention. It was that women in the class tend to speak less when both genders are involved in discussion. Like we had discussed on Tuesday that there is a certain point in life, during puberty, when girls tend to pull back from debate and let the boys take on the role in participating in class discussion. I agree in the statement and have seen it through both my middle school and high school careers. In high school especially I noticed it more because the girl to boy ratio was pretty low. For example, there were only six girls in my English class out of around 20 students. So when debate occurred, most likely it was the boys who spoke and the girls who sat back quietly. But also it was never really a concern for me because one teacher had said that participation should not count when it comes to grading. According to Tannen, she mentions, “Not only might women’s grades suffer because they speak up less, but they might be evaluated as less intelligent because when they didn’t speak, they asked questions rather than challenging the readings” (pg. 263). This brought up a very good point because it made me realize that it is actually important to participate since it can affect your grades and can affect how you interact and discuss later on in life.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lisa Vassello, your ideas helped me better summarize the article that there should not be a right or wrong answer to debate. I have also learned in high school that you had to choose a side in the debate and support your answer as to why the other side was wrong. Tannen does od a greta job in explaining that "we can develop more varied - and more constructive - ways of expressing opposition and negotiating disagreement" (pg. 290).
ReplyDeleteSomething I learned from Deborah Tannen's article was that many females speak up less and frequently answer questions less than their male counter parts. After reading the article I thought back to my high school years and realized that in many of my classes it was mostly the boys who answered while the girls seemed to shrink in their seats and let the men do all the talking. One class in which this pattern happened most was my theology classes weekly debate. The boys took charge and basically debated amongst themselves while the girls sat back and couldn't get a word in edgewise. Tannen models the kind of discourse she values by teaching her readers to speak up and that their opinion is theirs alone it is neither right nor wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Joe Hallisey, I agree that when I was growing up I too thought that the goal of a debate was to prove your opponent completely wrong and prove you have the superior intellect. Now after reading Tannen's article I realize that it's not about winning or losing in a debate it's about being open to listen to others and learning new things.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Amy Bucci, I have also witnessed that women ask more questions than men in the classroom, as Deborah Tannen said, and out of the classroom. Men have a sense of masculinity that drives them to prove themselves smart and cunning, whereas women are more preoccupied with getting the answer right and what the reactions will be if it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteSince reading Tannen's work, I feel I am more acclimatized to what actually happens in class and to pay attention to the little things, as they have a deeper meaning.