Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE
Seeing Both Sides of an Issue: Teaching an Online Moral Issues Course
Author: Sergia K. Hay
Journal Title: Discourse
ISSN: 1741-4164
ISSN-L:
Volume: 5
Number: 1
Start page: 134
End page: 141
Return to vol. 5 no. 1 index page
Although there are currently obvious advantages to teaching philosophy in physical classrooms,1 there are specific things online instructors of philosophy can do in order to make their courses equally effective as face-to-face courses. Sometimes instructors treat their online courses as flattened, or two-dimensional, versions of their face-to-face course by translating their lecture notes into large blocks of text for students to read or PowerPoint presentations. This is a mistake, however, since this way of presenting the material is dull and lifeless, and in the case of PowerPoint, may be oversimplified and/or lacking in important logical or explanatory value. This method of presentation also does not take advantage of the various pedagogical opportunities for active learning available through online instruction. Although there is no question that philosophy courses cover objective facts and concepts (e.g. technical definitions, historical information, various interpretations of theories, etc), philosophy also has a unique educational role because the questions which it poses:
...enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination, and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.2
Dialogue is essential to fulfilment of philosophy and open dialogue can be one of the great advantages of online courses.
In this paper, I present several assignments which hopefully will be useful for philosophy instructors in designing and implementing their own online courses. Although I will specifically discuss ideas for a moral issues course, it is possible that some of these ideas could be adapted to other philosophy courses as well.
Background on my course
The course I teach online is a 100-level course called 'Contemporary Moral Issues' at the University of Maryland University College— European Division. In this 16 week course, we discuss both moral theory (i.e. utilitarianism, deontology, virtue theory, social contract theory, feminist ethics, and subjectivism) and moral issues (i.e. euthanasia, capital punishment, abortion, civil disobedience, racism, and homosexuality). Students are expected to log into class at least three times a week and complete one to two weekly assignments, which typically include both reading specific portions of the text and writing a response to a question or set of questions within a public discussion area of the virtual classroom. Course requirements also include a proctored midterm exam, a take-home final exam, two drafts of a ten page paper, and a short debate document. I will discuss both the paper and debate document in more detail later in this paper.
Two of the most important objectives of the course are 1) to 'distinguish argument from opinion,' and 2) 'construct arguments in support of a position, including responses to objections.' The majority of students consider these goals to be the most valuable aspects of the course; for example, even if they have forgotten the exact formulation of the categorical imperative, the development of the ability to view issues from multiple angles provides students with numerous intellectual and practical rewards. Furthermore, these objectives provide the basis for the sort of education that requires effort and engagement rather than the sort of education that emphasises dissemination and regurgitation of facts.
In my course, I make a clear and early distinction between philosophical argument and mere opinion. Because we are discussing issues such as abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc, issues about which most, if not all, students already have formed their own positions, it is worth spending some time explaining the objectives of the course in order to avoid students' dogmatic declarations of the truth of their own opinion and prevent personal attacks directed toward the opinions of their classmates. In an online course, students may be more willing to assert their opinions without reservations or qualifications because there is less 'risk' of being immediately confronted by other students; they are more anonymous in a virtual classroom, and they have more time to formulate their position within asynchronous discussions. Asynchronous discussions can also get off topic rather quickly unless they are monitored constantly; for example, I had a student who wrote several personal attacks to other students who didn't agree with her position on abortion and when I entered class a day later, I had to spend some considerable time smoothing feathers and returning the discussion to the original topic.
Additionally, because almost all of the students have not taken a previous philosophy course and they recognise the controversial nature of the subject matter, they take the course in the hope of securing their pre-formed opinions and getting 'ammunition' for their everyday conversations on these matters. The resulting challenge for the instructor is to create an online environment in which students feel comfortable posting their ideas, but at the same time make clear the value of open-mindedness and the philosophical necessity of presenting logical reasons for their positions.
Making students feel comfortable posting their ideas is relatively easy. In my course, I remind students that they will not be graded on their positions, but rather on the quality of support they provide for their positions. This assures students that they will not be penalised if I do not agree with their position (for example, if they write that stem cell research should be prohibited while I think it should be promoted). I also set up a 'Philosopher's Lounge' area in the virtual classroom in which students are able to visit and discuss course related topics. Participation in the 'Philosopher's Lounge' is not required, nor graded, but in my experience this area has been a place for free discussion on topics as diverse as homosexuality in the military and the possibility of pure objectivity in relation to end-of-life issues. Obviously, feedback that incorporates humour and/or praise also increases students' willingness to present their ideas in class.
The other aspect of the challenge of teaching this course, namely encouraging open-mindedness and the presentation of logical reasons for a position, is slightly more difficult and I address this through specific assignments.
Assignments to establish the distinction between opinion and argument
In the first assignment for the course, I have students read online news articles that deal with four issues we will debate later in the term: euthanasia, capital punishment, economic equity, and civil disobedience. After reading the articles, students are asked to choose one of the issues and give reasons both for and against the positions stated. For example, in relation to civil disobedience, students read the case of Nathaniel Heatwole who planted various prohibited objects, like box cutters, on Southwest Airlines, in order to prove various deficiencies in security screening. Students who choose to respond to this article answer the following questions: 'Why should we believe Nathaniel Heatwole's actions were justified? Why should we not?' This exercise immediately gets students to begin thinking about presenting both sides of an issue and some students admit the difficulty of making both sides appear equally reasonable. A student who chose the capital punishment article posted the following message in class:
I discovered that my opinions can influence how I write something for this class. I wrote about the Steven Oken execution, and I kept running into difficulty trying to argue against his execution. My opinion got in the way of my seeing both sides of the argument. At first, it even got me sidetracked onto the conflict of interest that the Attorney General threw out into the public arena. For my part, it took a lot of discipline and re-reading of the objectives of the discussion to get it right.
In the second week, I post a separate topic titled 'opinion vs. argument' in which I specifically distinguish mere opinion from philosophical argument. In this posting, I emphasise that an opinion is 'an unsupported personal judgment' and an argument 'is a supported judgment that takes objections into consideration.' Because most students are familiar with the non-philosophical denotation of 'argument,' the definition of 'argument' used here is useful since it demands both good reasons in support of a position as well as the ability to consider the other side.
After completing the week one assignment on giving reasons for and against a given position and then reading the week two distinction between opinion and argument, a student posted the following message:
I warned everyone in my introduction that I like to play Devil's Advocate, and I do, but I have never really had one of my own deep seated beliefs or opinions challenged like that, and by ME, even. It changes one's outlook on things...
Besides setting the correct tone for the rest of the term, these early assignments also help students to correct each other within their discussions; for example, when students read postings from other students, they sometimes respond by saying something like 'although you have stated your opinion, what sorts of reasons can you provide for it?' or even help provide these reasons.
Assignments that apply the distinction between opinion and argument
The two main assignments for the course are a two to three page debate document and a ten page issue paper.
The debate document is assigned so that students can begin to exercise argumentative skills by asserting a proposition, give reasons for the proposition, list objections to the proposition and address those objections. Many students are daunted by the prospect of writing a 10- page philosophical paper on a controversial issue, so the debate documents show them how arguments can be outlined in their most basic form. Students have the option to complete the debate document individually or in assigned groups. Although I prefer that students work in groups in order to build a greater sense of classroom community and cooperation, some students (particularly the most conscientious and diligent ones) find group work requirements are unsatisfying and ultimately unfair in regard to grading.
The debate document assignment has been for the most part a great success in my courses. When I first assigned debates, I asked that they write a three page essay on their position, but frequently found that significant portions of their arguments were missing, most notably objections to their proposition and responses to those objections. Because this assignment requires a bare-boned outline requiring three main sections (proposition, substantiation, and refutations), students are able to focus their attention on the content of their argument. For this reason, the debate document is good preparation for their issue papers which require both content and essay form.
The second main assignment of the course is a ten-page issue paper. It's useful to break this assignment into two parts (a draft and final version), so that students are less likely to procrastinate, and can have an opportunity for minor changes or major revisions such as changing their proposition after examining good reasons on the other side of the issue. In the week two assignment, which distinguishes opinion from argument, I write to the students that, 'I strongly encourage you to develop your argumentative style by creating arguments both for and against your own opinions.' Although some students are not exactly eager to present the view opposite to their own, others have experimented with this idea by choosing a paper topic with which they don't agree. For example, a student wrote the following to notify me of her paper topic:
I am going to go against what I think and pick a topic I am not for and go for human cloning. I think it will help me to see both sides of the equation better if I look at a different point of view.
Comments like this contribute to the whole class' understanding of the aims of the course.
As with the debate document, students are to use a basic argumentative format (asserting a proposition, defending it, and responding to objections) when writing their issue paper. Because they have had practice making an outline for and against a position when preparing their debate document, most students have a good idea of how to structure their paper according to this format. By using this method of embedding learned skills within assignments of increasing complexity and difficulty, it is easy for students to see the relevance of previous assignments and for the instructor to monitor student progress. This sense of forward movement is essential to the success and momentum of an online course.
Web sources for teaching a moral issues course
Even if an instructor is teaching a face-to-face moral issues course, the construction of a companion website is recommended since students are usually extremely computer savvy and there are many course resources available online. Here is a short list of good sites that can be linked in a webliography for either face-to-face or online courses:
http://www.philosophytalk.org/
This is an excellent website for the radio programme 'Philosophy Talk.' On
this website you can listen to episodes concerning topics such as animal rights,
affirmative action and cloning. This site also includes lists of additional
resources on the programme topics.
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/
This is a website founded and edited by Lawrence Hinman at the University
of San Diego. It lists resources on ethical theories and issues; these include
videos of lectures and lists of other useful websites, books, and articles.
http://www.princeton.edu/~jimpryor/general/vocab/glossary.
html
This is a website by Jim Pryor at Princeton University that gives definitions
for philosophical terms that apply to arguments such as 'ad hoc', 'fallacy',
and 'appeals to authority'.
http://plato.stanford.edu/
This is the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which has extensive
entries on topics like homosexuality and philosophers such as Kant.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/
This is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm#courses
This is the Guide to Philosophy on the Internet created by Peter Suber at
Earlham College.
http://www.epistemelinks.com/index.aspx
This is EpistemeLinks.com: Philosophy Resources on the Internet.
Endnotes
- These advantages include synchronous and verbal discussion, the ability of the instructor as well as the students to read body language cues for indications of comprehension or lack thereof, and a natural sense of community. Although I am not convinced that online education will eventually completely trump the classroom experience, I do believe that the advantages face-to-face learning has over distance education will be diminished with the advancement of software and hardware technologies.
- Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912. p. 94.
Return to vol. 5 no. 1 index page
This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.
