A new quarter has just begun and one, ongoing challenge is how to teach argument. One colleague is continually stressing premise / opposition / evidence. I need to do the same. I need a refreshed approach, though the material in The Speaker's Compact Handbook is good. I also want to teach reasoning and logic in a way that is germane to students, not just definitions from classical rhetoric. I think that I had a good approach a few years ago. When teaching a 300-level argument course, I approached different forms of argument as ways of making sense of the world, conveying to students as if they were traveling in a region country where very little English was spoken -- how do they piece together their environment so that it makes sense to them? These are important elements of rhetoric that a student in a 100 level college course should leave knowing. Yes, it's in every text book, but how do I teach it?

 How do I teach reasoning, logic, and argument? The old ways don't seem sufficient anymore. In this 100 level oral communication class, I need to teach them to at least recognize these elements of rhetoric.

Can I get away from the things that I have been teaching and improve / expand or narrow? students need to learn the basics of logic and how to  form an argument and how to enact an argument. Is it that important to study inductive and deductive logic?  Perhaps I could teach that under another umbrella -- the umbrella of of how arguments are linked and how they build momentum to a conclusion.

What I discovered yesterday -- mid class, of course -- is that I don't have to reserve teaching reasoning to a unit (which usually comes between assigning the persuasive speech and students' first, actual / realistic glimpse of the end of the quarter -- mesmerizing). I realized that I can teach reasoning in the way that I introduce my sample outlines for the informative, and yes, perhaps even the seemingly innocent and fun / non-academic "introductory speech."  I write outlines in a deductive fashion. Ah ha! By recognizing that, I open up the opportunity to / give myself the chance to make the teaching of that outline structure, parts of which I've become very invested in, of course, some academic depth, other than "good writing-for-speaking").

But, before going further, I don't want to ignore that either. In my haphazard mid-term conference meetings, I've been stressing to those best students who attend their mid-term conferences, the connection between clear thinking, writing, and speaking. If the outline isn't written clearly, delivering the speech will be a guaranteed challenge.  Clear thinking = clear writing = clear speaking. And no, it doesn't happen immediately. The thinking / writing part are a process. The speaking can and should lead back to the beginning and editing. Circular.