A Flipped Classroom: Argument Analysis
Revision - ENG1021
April 18, 2012
A Flipped Classroom: Argument Analysis During class reviewing the three argumentative strategies, Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian, each of them differed from one another. For this research project an article that seemed like a Classical argumentative style paper. Though it being Classical was fairly successful then again it could also pass for Toulmin’s argumentative style because of how the conclusion was thought out and written.
With Classical, you have the refutation, which means the author is discussing the other side of the argument, “But the ideas behind flipping are not brand new…” (Tucker) While with Toulmin, they have the optional components of backing, rebuttal, and the qualifier which these components reside in the last four paragraphs of Tucker. In knowing all of these components, Tucker’s article concluded that it could possibly pass for both styles. Also with both components of these argumentative styles practically meaning the same, Tucker states that “It seems almost certain that instructional videos, interactive simulations, and yet-to-be-dreamed- up online tools will continue to multiply.” Given the quote it could be the refutation in Classical or the rebuttal and qualifier in Toulmin’s. The central argument was about how these two high school science teachers struggled with the time to reteach their lessons to students who were absent. This argument was presented and defended pretty well. For the first couple of paragraphs the author includes the base of the argument, but along with background information and how their study of the problem was sought out. The author defended it well with credible facts and opinions from actual people from the school and other teachers who tried the “flipping” of the classroom. Next the author, Tucker, makes all the arguments valid and credible because of his resources. He has Bergmann and Sams, the two science high school teachers, who decided to buy software to start
April 18, 2012
A Flipped Classroom: Argument Analysis During class reviewing the three argumentative strategies, Classical, Toulmin, and Rogerian, each of them differed from one another. For this research project an article that seemed like a Classical argumentative style paper. Though it being Classical was fairly successful then again it could also pass for Toulmin’s argumentative style because of how the conclusion was thought out and written.
With Classical, you have the refutation, which means the author is discussing the other side of the argument, “But the ideas behind flipping are not brand new…” (Tucker) While with Toulmin, they have the optional components of backing, rebuttal, and the qualifier which these components reside in the last four paragraphs of Tucker. In knowing all of these components, Tucker’s article concluded that it could possibly pass for both styles. Also with both components of these argumentative styles practically meaning the same, Tucker states that “It seems almost certain that instructional videos, interactive simulations, and yet-to-be-dreamed- up online tools will continue to multiply.” Given the quote it could be the refutation in Classical or the rebuttal and qualifier in Toulmin’s. The central argument was about how these two high school science teachers struggled with the time to reteach their lessons to students who were absent. This argument was presented and defended pretty well. For the first couple of paragraphs the author includes the base of the argument, but along with background information and how their study of the problem was sought out. The author defended it well with credible facts and opinions from actual people from the school and other teachers who tried the “flipping” of the classroom. Next the author, Tucker, makes all the arguments valid and credible because of his resources. He has Bergmann and Sams, the two science high school teachers, who decided to buy software to start
Cited: Tucker, Bill. “The flipped classroom: online instruction at home frees class time for learning.” Education Next 12.1 (2012): 82+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Mar. 2012 Glau, Gregory, and Barry Maid. "Chapter 14 Using Strategies for Argument." The McGraw-Hill Guide: Writing for College, Writing for Life. By Duane Roen. Second ed. 457-78. Print.