St. Cloud State University
General Education Goal Area 2
Critical Reasoning
Academic Affairs Use Only:
Response Date:
Effective Date:
Proposal Number:
1.
Prepared by: David Warne, Department of Communication Studies
Phone: 308-5415
Email: dlwarne@stcloudstate.edu
2.
Requesting Unit: Department of Communication Studies
3.
Department, Course Number, Title: CMST 318: Argumentation and Advocacy
4.
New Course
5.
Will this course be flagged as a diversity course?
Already Designated as Diversity
6.
Will this course also satisfy another General Education Goal Area?
No
If “Yes” specify which goal area.
Application for inclusion in Goal Area 11 is intended
Existing Course
No
Diversity Proposal Accompanying This Form
Yes
7.
Course bulletin description, including credits and semesters to be offered:
CMST 318. Argumentation and Advocacy. Construction and critique of
reasoned discourse and advocacy. Prereq.: 192 or equivalent and 211 or
permission of instructor. 3 Cr. F, S.
8.
Indicate the clientele for whom this course is designed. Is the course for general education only, or
does it fulfill general education and other program needs for this or another department? Obtain
signatures from any affected departments.
Communication Studies majors and minors. General education program.
9.
Indicate any changes that must be made in offerings or resources in your department or other
departments by offering this course.
N/A
10.
For new courses or courses not yet approved for General Education, indicate any other SCSU departments
or units offering instruction that relates to the content of the proposed course.
N/A
11.
Courses designated as General Education are included in the assessment plan for the Goal Area(s) for
12/11/2009
which they are approved. Courses for which assessment is not included in the annual GE assessment
report for two years will be removed from the General Education Program.
The Requesting Unit understands and recognizes the above conditions.
12.
Provide a concise explanation of how the following goal is a “significant focus” of the proposed course.
Goal Area 2: Critical Reasoning
Identify, analyze, and critically evaluate reasoning in a variety of domains in order to develop well founded
beliefs and engage in rational and effective action.
The focus of the course is on the nature of public controversies and
the identification, creation, and evaluation of arguments advocating for
specific belief or action in resolving or reducing conflict surrounding
public controversies. Students find, analyze, and create cogent arguments
advocating for and/or against courses of action in preparation and
completion of course capstone assignment (See course outline).
13. In order for a course to be designated as fulfilling Goal Area 2, it must address at least 5 of the 6 student learning
outcomes (SLOs) below. Check the SLOs below that are focused on in the proposed general education course.
1. Distinguish between discourse that contains reasoning and that which does not.
2. Distinguish between different types of reasoning.
3. Analyze arguments, distinguishing premises and conclusions.
4. Evaluate inductive and deductive reasoning.
5. Apply basic logical techniques.
6. Identify and avoid fallacies.
14.
Discuss how each Student Learning Outcome checked above is achieved in this course. (Note: Although
descriptions of typical assignments or types of assignments may be part of this discussion, it is not
appropriate to submit copies of actual assignments.)
SLO 1: Students learn definitions of claim, evidence, and reasoning as
elements of reasoned discourse. Students identify each of the three
components in in-class examples and in found materials and are expected to
create discourse that incorporates all three elements.
SLO 2: Students learn definitions of inductive and deductive reasoning.
Students identify and categorize examples of each in instructor provided and
student found materials.
SLO 3: Students learn the principle governing the 'correct relationship'
between premises and conclusions and the tension between logical and
rhetroical considerations in that relationship and the ethical implications
12/11/2009
of this tension. Students identify examples of this principle, in both the
logical and the rhetorical context, in provided and found materials.
Students discuss the ethical implications suggested in the materials.
Finally, students create argument demonstrating the relationship between
premises and conclusions and that meet the ethical considerations generated
in this discussion.
SLO 4: Students learn the principles of containment, necessity, validity,
and truth as they relate to deductive reasoning and arguments. Students
identitfy and evaluate the priciples in provided and/or found materials.
Additionally, student learn the principles of uniformity and probability as
it relates to inductive arguments and reasoning. Students identify the
concepts and evalute the principles in provided and/or found materials.
Finally students learn the general tests of reasoning and arguments
(acceptance, relevance, and sufficiency) and identify and evaluate these
principles in provided and found materials. Students are expected to create
arguments that appropriately utilize the principles in the creation of
cogent arguments.
SLO 5: Students learn how to apply and evaluate sound reasoning in written
and spoken forms.
SLO 6: Students learn the definitions of a variety of fallcies, including
reasoning. Students identify fallacies in provided and found materials and
are asked to create arguments that avoid fallacies outlined.
15.
List or attach the Course Outline (adequately described and including percentage of time to be allocated
to each topic). Curriculum Committees may request additional information. Topics larger than 20% need
to be broken down further. Indicate in your course outline where the Student Learning Outcomes
checked above are being met.
1. Introduction to the study of reasoned discourse: 10 percent-SLO 1, 2.
2. Identifification, and analysis of evidence: 10 percent-SLO 1, 2, 3,4.
3. Identification and analysis of claims, reasoning, premises, and
assumptions: 15 percent-SLO 3, 4, 5.
4. Identification and analysis of fallacies: 15 percent-SLO 6
5. Identification and analysis of stock issues in a public contovery: 10
percent-SLO 3, 5.
6. Research and create reasoned discourse in support of stock issues in a
public controvery: 10 percent-SLO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
7. Oral presentation of reasoned discourse surrounding a public contorvery,
including refutation and rebuttal of related issues: 20 percent-SLO 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6.
12/11/2009
8. Critique and analysis of oral presentations--including identification so
issues, premises, claims, reasoning, and possible fallacies: 10 percent-SLO
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
12/11/2009
St. Cloud State University
General Education Transmittal Form
Academic Affairs Use Only:
Response Date:
Effective Date:
Proposal Number
Department: CMST
Course or Course(s): CMST 318: Argumentation and Advocacy
Roseanna Gaye Ross
2/5/10 (revised 3/31/10)
Department or Unit Chair Signature
Date
Department forward to Academic Affairs for publication and electronically to Chair of General Education Committee, Chair
of College Curriculum Committee, College Dean
Recommendation of General Education Committee:
Approve
Remarks:
Disapprove
Chairperson
Committee
Signature
Date
Recommendation of University Curriculum Committee:
Approve
Remarks:
Disapprove
Chairperson
Committee
Signature
Date
Recommendation of Faculty Association:
Approve
Remarks:
Disapprove
FA Senate
Signature
Date
Action of Academic Vice President:
Approve
Disapprove
Signature
Entered in Curriculum Data File
12/11/2009
Remarks:
Date