The Big Picture: Using The Unforeseen To Teach Critical Thinking
- Conference
- Location
-
Austin, Texas
- Publication Date
-
June 14, 2009
- Start Date
-
June 14, 2009
- End Date
-
June 17, 2009
- ISSN
-
2153-5965
- Conference Session
- Tagged Division
-
Liberal Education
- Page Count
-
14
- Page Numbers
-
14.1180.1 - 14.1180.14
- DOI
-
10.18260/1-2--5595
- Permanent URL
-
https://peer.asee.org/5595
- Download Count
-
708
Paper Authors
Christy Moore University of Texas, Austin
CHRISTY MOORE is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin where she teaches engineering communication courses and a signature course on “Society, Technology, and the Environment.” Her pedagological and research interests include service-learning projects, engineering ethics and professional responsibility, research ethics, and strategies for advancing students' analytical and rhetorical skills. She is co-PI on an NSF project, The Foundations of Research Ethics for Engineers (FREE) and collaborated on the development of the PRiME (Professional Responisibility Modules for Engineers) Learning Modules, a suite of web-based modules designed to introduce undergraduates to engineering ethics.
D'Arcy Randall University of Texas, Austin
D'Arcy Randall is a Lecturer in Chemical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in Engineering Communications. Through UT's Study Abroad Program, she initiated a Summer in Spain class for UT's undergraduate engineers at the Universidad de Cantabria. She also created and maintains The Chemical Engineering Communications Website (http://www.engr.utexas.edu/che/techwriting), an online textbook for communication and laboratory classes. Her research interests include methods of teaching engineering ethics, argumentation, and graduate-level writing.
Hillary Hart University of Texas, Austin
Hillary Hart is Distinguished Sr. Lecturer in the Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, where she created and directs the program in engineering communication. She has published one book (two editions) and over 20 technical articles on environmental and risk communication, engineering ethics, and technical communication. A Fellow of the Society for Technical Communication, Hillary also works with companies, such as BP-Amoco, and public agencies to develop strategies for socially just, interactive communication among engineers, regulators, industry, and the public on environmental issues. She has recently begun exploring with her undergraduate classes the connection between ethical argumentation and visual representations.
Abstract
NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract
The Big Picture: Using The Unforeseen to Teach Critical Thinking
I think the current trend in documentary—is all about polarizing and—advancing one political agenda while denigrating the other half of the population. . . . I wanted to make a story that reflected the true complexities of the issue and got at the subject in a way that might shed new light on an issue that we all know about . . . Director Laura Dunn describing The Unforeseen. 1
Abstract
In our undergraduate Engineering Communication courses we help students develop their analytical skills through teaching argumentation. For several years we have used documentary film as a tool to engage students in a meaningful and stimulating discussion of rhetorical strategies and the principles of argumentation. Although documentaries, such as An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car, are useful for this purpose in many ways, students are resistant to perceived bias and editorializing in those films and others like them. In 2008, we began using The Unforeseen, a documentary that employs a different strategy, and according to the filmmaker, rejects “the current trend in documentary” to polarize people by denigrating one position and elevating another. In this paper we describe how we have used The Unforeseen in our Engineering Communication courses to introduce basic concepts of argumentation, such as ethos, pathos, and logos; present the results of students’ efforts to analyze the film’s rhetorical strategies; and analyze the pedagogical impact of using a film that presents many facets and perspectives of a complex issue.
Introduction
In “The Future of Engineering Education,” Eric Soulsby suggests that our job as engineering educators is to train “engineering problem-solvers” not only to think critically about their technical challenges but also “to apply [their] knowledge to broader societal needs.” 2 His co- authors echo his sentiments in their repeated emphasis on the importance of analysis in engineering education. As communication instructors we can think of no better way to teach analysis and critical thinking skills than by teaching rhetoric and argumentation. John Ramage and John Bean note in their watershed textbook that the purpose of argument is not simply to sway the audience, “but also to help the writer clarify his or her own thinking on an issue.” Argumentation they tell us “[i]s not an end in itself: rather, it is a means to achieving good decisions.” 3 If teaching argumentation can help students to clarify their thoughts, think more deeply about the world, and make better decisions, chances are they will be better equipped to solve complex engineering problems for the world’s peoples.
In our undergraduate Engineering Communication courses we have discovered that one way to engage students in a meaningful discussion of argument is by analyzing the rhetoric in documentary films. Documentaries such as An Inconvenient Truth (2007) and Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006) have a relevance to engineering and technology that make them suitable for discussion in engineering classes. In addition, these films present arguments that allow us to
Moore, C., & Randall, D., & Hart, H. (2009, June), The Big Picture: Using The Unforeseen To Teach Critical Thinking Paper presented at 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--5595
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2009 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015