Rogerian Argument on Psychological effects of video games

Rogerian Argument Rogerian Argument: A Description Emphasizing Listening and Empathy The Rogerian argument, named after Carl Rogers, is a unique approach to dispute resolution, distinct from the confrontational method we see often in debates. It focuses on understanding, empathy, and collaboration rather than “winning” an argument. Introduction: Instead of presenting the issue as a problem to be solved in the introduction, the Rogerian method usually begins with a neutral and objective introduction of the topic to provide context. Your Side: This section presents the writer’s perspective. It’s crucial that the presentation of this viewpoint isn’t confrontational but rather framed as a personal perspective, detailing why the writer holds these beliefs. Their Side: After presenting one’s own viewpoint, it’s essential to genuinely and fairly represent the opposing side. This isn’t an opportunity to misrepresent or weaken the opposing argument but a chance to show genuine understanding. Common Ground: This section is the heart of the Rogerian argument. It highlights areas where both sides agree, showcasing that despite differences, mutual understanding and commonalities exist. Synthesis (Compromise): Building on the common ground, this section presents a potential middle ground or compromise that respects both perspectives. It suggests a way forward that, while not perfect for either side, is amenable to both. Conclusion: This reinforces the importance of understanding, respect, and collaboration. It summarizes the synthesis and re-emphasizes the value of empathy and listening. The thesis, often located in the introduction, encapsulates the synthesis, the writer’s viewpoint, and the opposing viewpoint in a formula akin to: “Perhaps if we (adopt the compromise), we can achieve (your side’s aspirations) without neglecting (the opposing side’s concerns).” In essence, the Rogerian argument is less about convincing someone you’re right and more about understanding and valuing each other’s viewpoints. It prioritizes empathy, active listening, and finding shared solutions to conflicts. Advanced Composition: Assignment Sheet for Rogerian Argument Essay Objective: In this assignment, students will compose a Rogerian argument essay, emphasizing empathy, active listening, and mutual understanding. The essay should demonstrate an ability to fairly represent multiple viewpoints, find common ground, and suggest collaborative solutions. Instructions: Select a Controversial Topic: Choose a subject that has clear opposing viewpoints. This could be anything from societal issues, political debates, to local controversies. Research: Make sure to familiarize yourself with both sides of the argument. Use reliable sources to gather factual information and different perspectives on your chosen topic. Essay Structure: Introduction: Provide context for the topic without taking a confrontational stance. Your Side: Present your perspective in a non-aggressive manner, explaining why you hold this view. Their Side: Equitably present the opposing viewpoint. Show genuine understanding without setting up a “straw man” argument. Common Ground: Identify areas of agreement between both viewpoints. Synthesis (Compromise): Suggest a potential middle path that respects both viewpoints. Conclusion: Emphasize the importance of mutual respect, understanding, and collaboration in resolving conflicts. Thesis Statement: Place your thesis in the introduction and ensure it aligns with the Rogerian model. A sample structure might be: “Perhaps if we (adopt the compromise), we can achieve (your side’s aspirations) without neglecting (the opposing side’s concerns).” Citation: All references should be cited (APA). Word Limit: 500 – 750 words. Grading Criteria: Content & Depth: Does the essay thoroughly address both sides and provide a viable compromise? Organization: Is the essay structured effectively with clear transitions between sections? Compromise/Thesis: Is the thesis statement clearly articulated in the introduction, and does it effectively reflect the synthesis and objectives of a Rogerian argument? Use of Sources: Are sources used effectively to support the argument, and are they cited correctly? Writing Mechanics: Is the essay free from grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language suitable for the target audience? Submission: Draft Due Date: [Insert Date] Peer Review Session: [Insert Date] Final Essay Due Date: [Insert Date] Additional Resources: Lecture on the Rogerian Model from [date] – available on [learning platform]. Recommended Reading: [Insert Recommended Texts/Articles] Note: Remember, the goal is not to “win” but to understand and be understood. Approach the assignment with an open mind and a genuine desire to find shared solutions. For questions or additional guidance, please consult your instructor during office hours or schedule a separate appointment. Rogerian Argument Essay Grading Rubric Criteria Excellent (A) Good (B) Satisfactory (C) Content & Depth Comprehensive exploration of both sides, wellresearched with a strong compromise. Structure follows Rogerian format seamlessly with clear transitions. Adequate exploration of both viewpoints but may lack depth in some areas. Basic exploration with noticeable gaps in understanding or depth. Mostly follows Rogerian format with some minor organizational issues. Thesis is clear but may lack depth or originality. Loose adherence to Rogerian format; some sections may be out of place. Thesis is present but may not fully embrace the Rogerian approach. Disorganized or lacks clear adherence to the Rogerian format. Good use of sources to support points; few minor citation errors. Some sources used but may not always support points; several citation errors. Some grammatical/spelli ng errors that might distract. Limited or no sources; numerous citation errors or lack of citations. Organization Compromise/The sis Use of Sources Writing Mechanics Empathy & Understanding Thesis is clear, innovative, and effectively encapsulates the spirit of the Rogerian model. Multiple reliable sources enhance argument, perfectly cited. No grammatical/spelli ng errors. Language is sophisticated and appropriate. Exemplary demonstration of empathy and genuine understanding of both sides. Content & Depth (25 points) Organization (20 points) Compromise/Thesis (20 points) Few minor grammatical/spelli ng errors. Language mostly appropriate. Good demonstration of empathy but may lean slightly towards one side. Some demonstration of empathy; occasional bias evident. Needs Improvement (D/F) Limited or onesided exploration without significant depth or understanding. Thesis is unclear, missing, or does not reflect a Rogerian compromise. Numerous grammatical/spelli ng errors; language often inappropriate or unclear. Limited or no demonstration of empathy; heavy bias or misunderstanding evident. Use of Sources (15 points) Writing Mechanics (10 points) Empathy & Understanding (10 points) Total Points: 100 Instructors can assign point values to each category based on the importance they place on each criterion in the context of their course. The above is a suggested breakdown. Notes for Grading: Content & Depth (25 points) Organization (20 points) Compromise/Thesis (20 points) Use of Sources (15 points) Writing Mechanics (10 points) Empathy & Understanding (10 points) Total Points: 100 Instructors can assign point values to each category based on the importance they place on each criterion in the context of their course. The above is a suggested breakdown.

Rogerian Argument on Psychological effects of video games

We offer the best custom writing paper services. We have answered this question before and we can also do it for you.

GET STARTED TODAY AND GET A 20% DISCOUNT coupon code DISC20

Leave a Comment