Week 4--True/False Rhetoric
This week (as well as last week) we looked at True and False Rhetoric. What is it, according to Plato and Isocrates, and how have you seen it in your program? Do not disclose anything that might get you into trouble. But, what is the value of true and false rhetoric in our programs?According to Plato, false rhetoric includes persuasion and belief. Through the use of false rhetoric someone may be persuaded to believe that something is good for them when in fact it is not or when it convinces someone to do something which will only benefit the speaker. True rhetoric is intended for the benefit of those practicing it as well as those being practiced upon.
These ideas are directly applicable to my current position as team member for a system wide implementation of the lms WebCT Vista. This is something which we have been considering. We recently had a teleconference in which members of the meeting were discussing the implementation and the goals administrators had for the implementation such as increased collaboration between colleges and more efficient use of resources. After about 45 minutes of conversation, one person reminded the group that the primary goal of the lms was to benefit the student and that we needed to keep that goal at the center of our discussions.
My concern is that True Rhetoric will not make everyone work like one happy family. It would be nice but realistically that is not the case. I think about faculty who will be faced with Vista implementation in the next year and the many personalities which the implementation team will have to work with. According to True Rhetoric I should be able to convince faculty that everyone will benefit, the students, the faculty member and the institution and they will want to use the lms because of the benefits. What many will argue is that this only brings the faculty more work. For those who have many years to teach, I would argue that this new knowledge will make them more effective teachers and more competitive in the field. But for faculty members who are close to retirement this argument will not work. They will not be convinced that the investment of time and energy is worth it for them (even if it benefits the students) and they may not be convinced that the technology will make them considerably (or even a little) more effective.
True Rhetoric would work only if everyone had the same priorities and if they were willing to do what is "right" which many would argue is still a matter of opinion.
posted by Prof Santoy @ 11:10 AM
2 Comments:
Well, Plato makes a distinction between persuasion and belief, yes? But, yes--there's a difference between persuasion/belief and wisdom.
Interesting points about how this relates to your work with Vista. Sounds a lot like stasis, too; that the entire group needs to focus on the main argument--to benefit students.
Ultimately, with technology, as we've discussed, I think it comes down to this: some teachers change their pedagogy to suit a technology, and others manipulate their technologies to suit their pedagogy. The latter is better. The later is more like wisdom (I know how to teach, what tool helps me do it the best). The former is more like persuasion (let me use technology to persuade students that a pedagogical approach works).
What do you think? Agree or disagree?
I agree that we need to use technology in order to meet our goals, to be more effective.
We are faced with a more pressing issue. We are being asked to graduate students who are "technology" competent and since we are blessed (?) to have the one class which all students have to take, Comp. I, we will have to prove that we can "teach" toward those outcomes. So the question will be, will we choose to use technology as an add on or will we implement it in ways to reach our course objectives, to teach students how to communicate better, differently, more efficiently, etc?
Post a Comment
<< Home