1 / 15

Aim #3: How can we use SOAPStone and RAVEN to deconstruct and analyze an argument?

Aim #3: How can we use SOAPStone and RAVEN to deconstruct and analyze an argument?. September 14, 2018. Lenses?. Cultural and Social Ethical Artistic and Philosophical Political and Historical Scientific Futurisitc. Subject: What is the main idea/thesis/argument.

kreeli
Download Presentation

Aim #3: How can we use SOAPStone and RAVEN to deconstruct and analyze an argument?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aim #3: How can we use SOAPStone and RAVEN to deconstruct and analyze an argument? September 14, 2018

  2. Lenses? • Cultural and Social • Ethical • Artistic and Philosophical • Political and Historical • Scientific • Futurisitc

  3. Subject: What is the main idea/thesis/argument • There is no well-designed research showing that single-sex education improves students’ academic performance, but there is evidence that it increases gender stereotyping and sexism.

  4. Occasion: Why did the authors write this? • To encourage educators (teachers/administrators) and policy-makers (particularly in the Obama administration Department of Education) to support co-ed education and oppose any weakening of Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments by allowing for more SS classes in co-ed schools.

  5. Audience: Who is the paper written for? • Science Magazine is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. It would not be readily available to most ordinary parents, children or people in the public at large. • The audience is more likely educators and policy-makers (particularly in the Obama administration Department of Education) who have some control over how American schools operate.

  6. Purpose? • Opinion piece/argument based on scholarly research and scientific evidence.

  7. Speaker? • Written by university professors with advanced degrees in subjects such as psychology, neuroscience, family and social dynamics, etc. They have conducted research on the subject they are writing about. • They are all founders and board members of the nonprofit American Council for CoEducational Schooling.

  8. Tone: What is the attitude of the author towards the topic? • Serious, non-ironic, scholarly, biased/slanted.

  9. That’s so RAVEN: Reliability Ability to Observe Vested Interest Expertise Neutrality

  10. Reliability? • Yes: The writers are experts in their fields and have conducted significant research on what they are writing about. They also cite other scholarly articles and studies to support their arguments. • No: With citations 17, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, the authors are citing their own research. They also have significant bias because they work for the American Council of CoEducationalSchoolong.

  11. Ability to Observe • Yes: They have conducted extensive research and reviewed the research of others.

  12. Vested Interests • Yes: They have a personal stake in discrediting single-sex schooling because they work for an organization that is devoted to promoting co-ed schooling.

  13. Expertise • Yes: They are noted professors with advanced degrees and have conducted extensive research.

  14. Neutrality • No: They have a clear position on this issue, and they craft their argument and present their data in such a way as to support that position.

  15. Line of Reasoning: Structure of the argument • Introduction of the topic • There is little evidence that children gain any academic advantages from going to a single-sex school. • There is little evidence from brain research that boys and girls learn differently. • There are many negative impacts on children of going to single-sex schools and taking single-sex classes. • Conclusion How sound is this line of reasoning? Are there any flaws?

More Related