hes eb ge

Take a Seat: Take a Stand!

in the traditional “lecture-discussion” approach, the
> to the other is too seldom evident
i bainctiut of students. Most continue to
eacher-taik gives way to an interchange

instructor and a few of their more vocal

shift from one mod

to more than a

  

issivity? Partly, | suppose, because the
siomary “Any questions?” hardly invites involve-
‘nt. Bui more, I believe, because many undergradu-
rficularly in community colleges, are afraid to
Jetend positions on age-old disputes
anities and sacial sciences.
why this is true of most of the students who have
red into my sections of Introduction to Philoso-
ring for eS back of the room on the first day
make it clear that they would far prefer
{or -sno0zing) to active engagement

1 t
INHMOASOONIC AL SSues,

 

 

bility to

  

 

observations on their choice of chairs, however,
b ot have found useful in getting
1. Wi hat ! have done is simply
{ ident desks and make use of the chalk-
dares which line the classroom so that every student

 

  

island somply by faking a seat. Once students have
iotined a viewpoint, of course, they are quite literally
sitioned to defond it.
VeVe

Sample Issue

and the Search for Ultimate Truth
‘ly in the quarter we read excerpts from an essay
\merican pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce.
Lin soning Over More Common ways
uke appeals to personal prejudice or
thority, Peirce slyly but repeatedly injects
is faith into his argument: “{If it be true
annihilation, then the man who believes
nat he wall certainly go to heaven when he dies,
has fultilled certain simple observances in
c a ap pleasure which will not be fol-
iowed by the jeast disappointment.” On no subiect do
students claim to feel more passionate than

     

YE SeTHINY ODIMION,
5

  

provided he

this life, has a

oe a otic dee tyro enn Zen Mea tale aan cone tts see it) >
stl NOL Een egiaa a sae ttee

   

Xl, NUMBER 20

  
   

 

SMU Eee is ae 0 mele si,

on religion, but Peirce’s sarcasm usua aly asses the
by...until | demand they take a stand & Ec

A New Classroom Configuration

The day after students have read and revieweou
Peirce selection, my classroom takes on a new !ook
Chairs are divided into three clusters, each grou
bencath a sign on the chalkboard: (1) Sit - here
can defend your belief in God on what Peirce wou!
consider scientific grounds. (2) Sit back bere if yo
faith in God rests on what Peirce would consic
personal prejudice or appeals to authority. (4) S:
here if you don’t believe in God or doubt thet ou
exists.

Everyone in class has now taken a stand on 9 ci
issue of modern philosophy: Can scientific reacor
resolve metaphysical questions? Perhaps a thro
students bravely wait under the first banner. Vine! o
the others have setiled uneasily under the second. ©
groups glower at the few who have chosen option t)

 

 

Defending a Stand (Seat)

Having taken their stands, they must nov
them. To maintain universa! participation, ! o
cach phase of the discussion by requiring (oat co!
in writing. The scientific believers have tho mos
obvious task: explain the basis for your | faith
they present their positions, the skeptics ar
counterattack. If Peirce is right that scien.
truth, “such that the ultimate conclusion of ove
shall be the same,” the scientific believers hax
problem.

The group in back is now on edge, and ri
The question they must address is this
your crowd ostriches who hick
to avoid facing reality, intellectual slaves
think for them, fools whe cannot pul iwo e
together for themselves; has he discoverod the ts
about you?

 

 

   
  
 

Chairs (and Minds) Begin to Move
By this time students are not only shif

their seats but actively questioning the s
put them there. Some actually move the

  

 

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOL
Community College Leadership Program, Department of Educational Administration
College of Educaton, The Uriversiyrol Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin. Texas 78712

tee