Consider this scenario: For many students, teacher evaluations are a moment of retaliation. Those who received grades they feel are unwarranted will often blame the teacher’s poor instruction or grading methods for their failure. One student, Joshua, defends the teaching style of Dr. Deming. “I thought Dr. Deming was fantastic. He was always engaging and willing to take some extra time when I needed it,” he explains. Tara, who received a D- on her final paper, disagrees; “If he is such a great professor, then why did I do so poorly this semester? I worked so hard! If it’s not his fault, I don’t know who to blame. Joshua, you can’t possibly make me believe that Dr. Deming knows what he’s talking about.” A third student, Jenna, joins the conversation, having received a grade she likely deserved; “I don’t think Dr. Deming was a bad professor. He gave me a C, but honestly I didn’t expect much better than that. Anyway, forget Dr. Deming—I can’t believe that girl tripped in the hallway in front of everyone!”
Based on the scenario, determine whether Dr. Deming deserves favorable evaluations. Respond to the following questions in your initial post:
What premises might logically support this claim? Are there any patterns you can discern from the different students’ responses to Dr. Deming’s teaching? If so, explain.
What premises might be psychologically relevant but not logically relevant?
What is wrong with stating premises that are only psychologically relevant to their conclusion? By what criteria are you able to determiney forms within this scenario?
What premises might be psychologically relevant but not logically relevant?
What is wrong with stating premises that are only psychologically relevant to their conclusion? By what criteria are you able to determiney forms within this scenario?
No comments:
Post a Comment