Handout CPE: Classroom Policies and Expectations

The central purpose of higher education = pursuing the life of the mind

Let me state the obvious: while learning is but one aspect of a full and satisfying life, our primary responsibility as participants in higher education is to be, and to secure the conditions for the success of others to be, good students. What it means to be a good student is as obvious as it is commonly ignored:

Good students attend all classes and arrive on time; put their electronic rectangles and other distractions aside; participate regularly, thoughtfully, and respectfully; consistently strive to produce high quality work and meet all deadlines; consult with the professor during office hours when necessary; seek out assistance when required; and -- most generally -- openly, deliberately, and with genuine curiosity, care, enthusiasm, and humility embrace this and other formal opportunities for intellectual, scholarly growth; that is, for pursuing the life of the (educated) mind. 

This pursuit can and should be difficult, often challenging our preconceptions and seemingly at odds with settled convictions and goals. Education is both intrinsically and extrinsically valuable; that is, it both instantiates and conditions the good life.

As the educator Abraham Flexner suggests:

Institutions of learning should be devoted to the cultivation of curiosity, and the less they are deflected by the consideration of immediacy of application, the more likely they are to contribute not only to human welfare, but to the equally important satisfaction of intellectual interest.

And more dramatically, the American philosopher John Dewey writes:

Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.

My class policies and expectations, consonant with this understanding of what it means to be a good, engaged, caring, humble, and curious student are as follows (see also the list of intellectual virtues in the "Philosophy Toolkit"):

Attendance
Missing class (or arriving late/leaving early) is not an excuse for missing a deadline or an assignment.  Furthermore, since all of my seminars/courses center on informed, respectful, and inclusive discussion of assigned readings/exercises, attendance -- like its counterpart, participation (see below) -- is obviously required to benefit from or contribute in any significant way to the seminar.  However, in the context of a noncompulsory, post-secondary educational setting designed to maximize student agency, it strikes me as errantly parentalistic and possibly pedagogically ineffective to award official credit to those who satisfy this basic requirement (my co-author and I consider the parentalism-agency debate in Bridges to Autonomy). Therefore, aside from those instances when the College requires it, I will not take attendance.  (I imagine that, in some seminars, our biweekly tests -- often involving materials only discussed in class -- will have a salutary if mildly parentalistic influence on attendance.) See also the official college policy which outlines justifiable absences and their attendant responsibilities. In short: attendance is required but rewarded only (!) with the success that accrues to those good students who, by my definition above, have some success in pursuing the life of the mind.

Participation
Likewise, aside from the basic respect due all persons, I will not award any kind of special credit to those who, in fulfilling an equally basic and obvious duty as a member of a community of learners/scholars, regularly and effectively participate in classroom discussions and other activities. While lecture-based methods can be marginally effective (as a consequence of active listening), all learning is inherently active. Since I design each of my seminars to be discussion-intensive, I expect all students to participate fully. Mandatory classroom participation schemes, however, like policies that award credit for mere attendance, are often little more than misguided incentives designed to trick or force (adult) students into acting like adults. As E. M. Forster writes:

Spoon feeding in the long run teaches us nothing but the shape of the spoon.

In short: participation is required but rewarded only (!) with the success that accrues to those good students who, by my definition above, have some success in pursuing the life of the mind.

Grading
Despite the heavy financial and opportunity costs which attend post-secondary education, no one, independently of one's scholarly performance, has purchased or contracted for a right to a good or passing grade (but merely (!) the opportunity to pursue the life of the mind). Rather, given that grades are (a somewhat unfortunate) institutional requirement, fairness demands that good grades must be earned. In an effort to resist the triadic wave of grade inflation, social promotion, and consumerism currently plaguing our educational institutions, I strictly adhere to a traditional understanding of the grades A-F (outstanding-good-acceptable-deficient-abysmal).

Furthermore, I fallibly grade (or, more fashionably, assess) students on their individual performance, not on some species of errantly collectivist “curve.” Our responsibility as teachers is to grade student work, not the students themselves. That is, I do not -- and do not think it fair or right for anyone to -- grade student effort, potential, intelligence, character, goals, needs, or any other feature of students' lives aside from their scholarly products and adherence to course standards/expectations. Nevertheless, I will gladly discuss (and reconsider if warranted) my assessment of each student's work at any point in the semester. In short: please don't expect to receive a grade higher than the one you earn.

Unexcused Absences/Make-ups/Extra Credit/Incompletes and other Nonsensical terms
Aside from officially sanctioned reasons for absence or lateness as outlined identified in the College's policy documents, I will – on principle and in fairness to those who do their work in a timely fashion – strictly enforce all course deadlines. Therefore, with the lone exception of work voluntarily and with my approval submitted for potential publication in the Program's philosophical newsletter Thesis XII, I will not offer (undocumented) "incompletes," “makeup exams," “partial credit” for late work, or “extra credit” for those hoping to improve existing grades (but see the paragraph below describing "special accommodations"). In short: please plan to do all of your work on time.

Civility/behavior/electronic distractions
I believe that nothing is more corrosive to our educational success than incivility -- a broad category which includes all manner of inappropriate or disruptive behavior, including incessant joking, chatting, arriving late/leaving early, expressing socially disruptive anger, engaging in personal attacks (we discuss the merits of ideas, theories, and positions here, not persons) and, most noticeably, attending to a variety of electronic rectangles rather than the seminar and its participants. While honest disagreement and debate (along with occasional laughter, frustration, or surprise) are natural and welcome consequences of our inquiries, there is never a call for disruptive, disrespectful, abusive, or intimidating (let alone hateful) words or actions of any sort in our dealings with each other in a classroom setting (virtual or otherwise).

As Shakespeare describes kindness: 

How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a weary world. 

In short: please remain fully considerate of others.

Special Accommodations/Extra-Academic Concerns
If/when other aspects of your life threaten to interfere with your formal education, there is no substitute for open and immediate communication with your professor.  Finally, I will happily honor any officially documented requirements for special accommodations as outlined in the MCLA Student Handbook. Please consult MCLA's "Students with Disabilities" policy statement. MCLA's "Help Directory" usefully outlines all student-related services available on campus.

Handout CR3: Creating a CRITO Outline

CRITO (formed acronymically from the terms Conclusion, Reasons, Inference, Truth, and Objections) addresses both the principled reason assessment and critical attitude components of critical thinking, by requiring students to assess critically (carefully, impartially, consistently, logically, accurately, and relatively autonomously) their beliefs or claims. The individual elements of CRITO mirror the essential components of any cogent or sound inference and provide an effective outline for an argumentative or evaluative essay.

Creating a CRITO Outline

C: State conclusion (or claim) (C). (C) ought to be explicit and clear, particular or singular, important and substantive (the object of possible or actual debate), truthful and accurate, and of genuine interest to the student (see also, handout ST).

R: State reasons (R), premises, or evidence, sufficient to convince the reader of the truth (accuracy, reasonableness, and so on) of (C).

I: Test the inference (I), or argument, to ensure that reasons are sufficient to produce (C).

T: Test the truth (T) of (R), since even a valid or strong argument (that is, a valid or strong argument that passes the (I) test) may contain any number of false parts. Only the best (deductively sound or inductively cogent) arguments pass both the (I) and the (T) tests.

O: Construct the strongest imaginable objection(s) (O) to the argument. Finally, respond to the objection(s), making any necessary revisions to the original argument.

Therefore, a complete CRITO outline should look something like this and fit easily on one page:

Student's Name
Date
Course

C: Central claim of essay (one sentence).
R: All reasons or evidence required to defend C (one sentence for each R).
O: Strongest imaginable objection(s) to C (one sentence for each O).
RO: Response to the objection (one sentence for each RO).

(Note: There will typically be 2-3 R's and at times more than one O.)

Relation of CRITO Outline to Final Essay/Q&A
A CRITO outline produces merely the rough content for an essay, the exact form of which ought to follow the guidelines for producing critical/persuasive essays (see handout CR2) and will be determined by the effort, talent, and imagination of its author. (Note: only the content of stages C, R, and O will be noticeable in both the outline and final essay. I and T are logical tests designed solely to strengthen the overall argument of the essay.)  See also handout ST designed to assist in identifying an adequate "C."

Handout CR2: CRITO-Based Argumentative/Persuasive Essays

Mechanics (form): Your essay — excluding footnotes, bibliography, and CRITO outline (see handout CR3) — should be minimally 2 (nonhonors sections) or 3 (honors and online sections) pages in length; it should have, as a maximum, one-inch margins all around; it should be double-spaced in 10-12 point, non-italicized font of your preferred type and be left justified only; it should include your name and date, single-spaced, in the upper left-hand corner; it should contain no grammatical or spelling errors and conform to the basic conventions of academic, or formal, writing (for example, no contractions (can't, don't, etc.), slang, or inappropriate gender-specific language; minimal use of the passive voice,* nominalizations,** and "mere opinion" (CRITO will be invaluable here);*** and proper — meaning consistent — use of footnotes and bibliography). See also the philosophy department's Style Checklist. Edit your work frequently and carefully: Poor form and style seriously distract from and often undermine the quality of the content.

Grading: (as outlined in your syllabus and/or in the handout on Q&A's).

Generally, when assigning all grades, I attempt to adhere to a traditional understanding of the grades A-F (outstanding-good-acceptable-deficient-abysmal/nonexistent).

Content: In most cases, I will determine the specific focus of your essay by providing a question or prompt related to a class reading. Your task is to research, construct, and refine a sophisticated yet clear, philosophical yet interesting, argumentative essay that responds to my question/prompt. I expect that your thinking and research efforts will take you well beyond the texts I assign in class — these essays are your opportunity to shine as a researcher, writer, artist, and scholar.

-------------------------------

*Avoid the passive voice whenever possible.

For example:

Good: "Good writers avoid the passive voice."
Not so good: "The passive voice is avoided by good writers."

**Avoid nominalizations by expressing important actions as verbs, not nouns.

For example:

Good: "He decided to write clearly."
Not so good: "He made a decision in favor of clarity in his writing."

***Opinions require substantiation.

For example:

“Informed” opinion: "I think Karl Marx is right (or wrong) for reasons X, Y, and Z."
“Mere” opinion: "I think Karl Marx is right (or wrong)."

Handout CR1: Brief Essay Desribing the CRITO Method

"Critical Thinking and the Argumentative Essay"
DKJ, 2001
National Critical Thinking Conference
Atlanta, GA

It has always been my nature never to accept advice from any of my friends unless reflection shows that it is the best course that reason offers.  ---- Socrates, in Crito

In this brief essay I introduce a writing technique (CRITO) easily adaptable to any discipline whose curriculum includes formal writing in which the student makes and supports substantive claims (the so-called "argumentative" or "evaluative" essay). Following the philosopher Harvey Siegel, I begin with the idea that a critical thinker is one who is appropriately moved by reasons. This characterization of critical thinking combines a reason assessment component (the principled assessment of reasons and their ability to warrant beliefs, claims, and actions; that is, the domain of arguments) and a critical attitude component (the disposition to engage in principled reason assessment). It follows that the fully critical thinker is both able and disposed to engage in principled reason assessment:

"Such a person habitually seeks evidence and reasons, and is predisposed so to seek -- and to base belief and action on the results of such seeking. She applies the skills and abilities of reason assessment in all appropriate contexts, including those contexts in which her own beliefs and actions are challenged (emphasis mine)." (H. Siegel, Educating Reason, p. 32)

As the final line of this passage suggests, the critical temper is often least spontaneous as we confront our most basic prejudices or deeply held convictions. In these situations, to paraphrase Siegel, we may possess the ability, but not the disposition, to assess critically certain of our beliefs or claims.

CRITO (formed acronymically from the logical terms Conclusion, Reasons, Inference, Truth, and Objections) addresses both the principled reason assessment and critical attitude components of critical thinking. The technique requires students to assess critically (carefully, impartially, consistently) the validity (or strength) of their own inferences, the truth of reasons supplied in defense of conclusions, and, finally, the soundness (or cogency) of those inferences. I claim no originality for the individual elements of CRITO, which simply mirror (in C, R, I, and T) the essential components of any cogent (inductive) or sound (deductive) inference and, not surprisingly, provide an effective outline for (or first draft of) an argumentative or evaluative essay. Although I have chosen to describe its components in the language of formal logic, CRITO requires only a general understanding of the nature of rational argumentation.

C: First, each student must identify clearly the central claim or conclusion (C) he or she hopes to defend. The central claim of an argumentative essay ought to be straightforward, singular, substantive (non-tautological and the object of possible or actual debate), ostensibly defensible, and of genuine interest to the student. (C) is often tentative, in the sense that the student is aware that it is potentially criticizable and open to revision. This first step in producing an argumentative essay – deciding exactly what to write about -- is perhaps the most important. I have devised, therefore, a separate technique (“STEP-I,” an acronym formed from five stages of “C” production – selecting a topic of interest and ensuring its truthfulness, explicitness, particularity, and importance) to help students think critically about choosing and refining the central claims of their essays.

R: Second, (C) requires for its defense a set of premises or reasons (R). Logic demands only that each argument has at least one premise, though the number ought to be sufficient to convince the reader of the truth (accuracy, reasonableness, and so on) of (C).

I: Third, the student must assess the inference (I), or logical connection between (R) and (C), to ensure that the reasons are sufficient to produce (C), either with some degree of probability (inductively) or with certainty (deductively). In less formal terms, this step determines the validity (or, with induction, the strength) of the inference, since an argument can fail despite all of its parts being true (as one might try to defend a true conclusion with irrelevant premises). Failing the (I) test, the student must add to or qualify the existing reasons and conclusion to produce a new argument.

T: Fourth, the student must assess the truth (T) of the reasons, since even a valid or strong argument (that is, a valid or strong argument that passes the (I) test) may contain any number of false parts. The student must replace or refine false premises. Only the best (deductively sound or inductively cogent) arguments will pass both the (I) and the (T) tests.

O: Fifth, the student must construct the strongest imaginable objection(s) (O) to the argument, testing further its ability to withstand critical scrutiny. This is, perhaps, the most difficult stage of CRITO, for it sanctions a potentially unsettling fallibilism; that is, it asks the student to imagine that his or her considered judgments remain susceptible to revision. Finally, the student should respond to the objection(s), adjusting the original argument as necessary.

Since its original publication, CRITO has assisted secondary and post-secondary instructors' efforts to teach philosophy, music, sociology, mathematics, and English composition. While the method has naturally evolved to suit individual teaching styles and pedagogical concerns, several core skills remain invariant across all applications, including CRITO's basic attention to the adequacy of reasons and the process of reasoning itself, the notion of authorial fallibility, the refinement of students' own pre-critical views, and the development of the habit or disposition systematically to question such views.

I will close with three general comments on the method. First, despite its somewhat formulaic appearance, CRITO (together with its complement, STEP-I) merely provides well-placed and potentially rewarding prompts for student activity and reflection. Like other critical thinking techniques, CRITO does not guarantee, but only promotes and directs, critical thought and behavior. It is no routine or easy task, however, to accept even partially CRITO's challenge to engage in principled reason assessment or, especially, to construct and consider nontrivial objections to one's current beliefs.

Second, CRITO presents an opportunity to have these challenges to the students' considered judgments issue, not from the instructor, but from the students themselves, as they learn to apply general rules of good reasoning to their own beliefs and arguments. As an affective strategy, the impersonal, seemingly objective, nature of CRITO's demands may help to provide the emotional space in which students can accept and learn from nontrivial challenges to their most basic assumptions.

Finally, in addition to its obvious value for both "writing-to-learn" and "learning-to-write" programs, CRITO is compatible with most forms of collaborative learning. Small group work, especially pairs , in which students alternate between presenting their work and listening to and commenting critically on another student's work, can facilitate each successive stage of principled reason (and objection) assessment.

(A longer version of this essay, co-authored by Matt Silliman and published in Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum, 17, 4, is available in my office or the library.)

Handout CARE: Cumulative Argumentative Research Essay

What is a cumulative argumentative research essay (CARE*)?
A critical/persuasive/argumentative research essay produced in multiple stages that defends in a thoroughly researched fashion a substantive position on an important topic clearly related to our class discussions/readings. The essay-writing consists of several distinct stages (see the entry on “deadlines,” below): 1. Compose (and receive my approval for) a one-sentence thesis statement which identifies in clear and precise language the substantive position to be defended in a persuasive essay; 2. provide a tentative bibliography (consisting of an annotated list of, at bare minimum, five scholarly sources of information for your research) along with a detailed, CRITO-based (see handouts CR1-CR3) outline of your project (minimally, two typewritten pages); 3. produce an initial draft of your (complete) essay; and 4., produce a final, highly polished and thoughtful 8-10-page version of your essay (see the entry on “form,” below).

What should my essay be about?
Each student is free to propose any topic that is clearly related to the discussions/readings of our seminar. I will approve/reject topics and make recommendations following the first deadline.

What form ought my essay to take?
Final drafts of essays — excluding footnotes and bibliography — should be approximately 8-10 pages in length; it should have, as a maximum, one-inch margins all around; it should be double-spaced in 10-12 point, non-italicized font of your preferred type and be left justified only; while both engaging and philosophically astute, it should contain no grammatical or spelling errors and conform to the basic conventions of academic, or formal, writing (for example: no contractions (can't, don't, etc.), slang, or inappropriate, gender-specific language, minimal use of the passive voice, nominalizations; and proper — meaning, to my mind, consistent — use of footnotes and bibliography). For help with basic grammatical and stylistic issues, see the philosophy department's “Writing Checklist.” See also Adrian Piper's "Ten Commandments of Philosophical Writing." Edit your work frequently and carefully -- poor form and style distract from and may undermine the quality of the content.

What are the Deadlines?
Deadlines are absolutely final – no exceptions/extra credit/partial credit. We will collectively determine all deadlines in the first days of the semester.

1. One (declarative) sentence thesis statement, due: TBD. I have one letter grade subtracted from their final grade for the project. (Example, a “B” essay received on the final class from a student who fails to meet deadline #1 will receive a “C.”)

2. Outline and tentative bibliography, due: TBD. Students missing this deadline will have one letter grade subtracted from their final grade for the project.

3. Initial hard copy draft of essay, due: TBD. Students missing this deadline will have one letter grade subtracted from their final grade for the project.

4. Final version of essay: due in hard copy on the final day of class.

How will my essay be graded?
See the paragraph on grading in Handout CPE.  The essay represents 75% of a student’s final grade for the course.

*Many thanks to Evie Ross for devising the acronym CARE.

Handout BR: Book Review

Guidelines:

Each student will read and review one full-length, single-author text of his/her choice. Texts must clearly relate to the discussions/readings of our class. Early in the semester, I will approve all titles in advance on email or in person. Each book review should be approximately 4-5 pages in length, and must contain at least all of the following:

1. The title, author(s)/editor, publisher, and date of publication;
2. The student’s name and date of submission;
3. An opening paragraph identifying the philosophical/argumentative context and general focus or importance of the book;
4. One section detailing the arguments and positions of the author, in the order in which they appear in the book; and
5. One section in which the student comments critically on the central arguments of the text.

Assessment

Students will informally present/read the results of their reviews in the final weeks of the semester. Written reviews are due at the time of presentation (see also, Handout CPE, “grading”). This assignment constitutes 25% f each student’s final average for the course. Students failing to present their reviews will lose one full letter grade.