Arguing Differently and Perhaps Out of Context

The original "theme" for my writing course at Boston College was argumentation.  My mentor eventually talked me out of this theme suggesting it might come across with a kind of negative connotation; he spoke as if I would be setting myself up for a hostile classroom environment.  As a result, I appreciated reading Kroll's article about attempting a course of "arguing differently" and I especially appreciated his discussion about the misconceptions his course title raised.  Perhaps my mentor had the right idea guiding me, as a first year instructor, away from attempting to combat the established understandings of what it means to make an argument.  

As I continued reading, however, I became more interested in Kroll's expressed tendency to justify his teaching methods against his students' resistance to attempting unfamiliar techniques.  This is definitely something to which I can relate, and it was nice to read about an established writing instructor's seeming struggle in this area.  I feel like I am constantly attempting to validate assignments or grades, perhaps more so to myself than to my students.  I find it is easier to put effort and energy into an assignment when I truly believe there is some merit behind it's existence.  I always detested busy work as an undergraduate and so I try to make sure that the work I give my students will always at least connect to something they need to do for my course.  Ideally I want to provide them with tools that will help them throughout college (and dare I say, even throughout life) and I like to be totally transparent with that attempt.  So I'll constantly attempt to explain why it is useful for them to write a review or work with peer editing groups or attempt an exploratory research form.  I know this is not exactly what Kroll was attempting with his article, but I found it a little reassuring.