Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-SELF-DIRECTED-GRADUATE-SEMINAR 👈

1. METAPHILOSOPHY
Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1978
A zyxwvu
SELF-DIRECTED GRADUATE SEMINAR*
LEE zyxwvu
c. ARCHIE
AND zyxwv
B. zyxw
G. HURDLE
JR.
Introduction: Nowhere is it so obvious as in philosophy that
teaching is more than the transmission of information. Learning
philosophy consists, in large measure, of doing philosophy. In
view of the growing interest in both the effective teaching and
studying of philosophy we present this report on a somewhat
experimental graduate seminar conducted in the Fall of 1972
by the Department of Philosophy at the University of Arkansas.
Although many traditional pedagogic techniques were utilized,
several innovations in the seminar format have produced a
singular effect on a small number of graduate students of
philosophy. The course schedule, the weekly format, the struc-
ture of individual meetings, and a final evaluation of each of
these aspects of the program are given in the expectation that
philosophers and other students of philosophy will share the
same experience.
In the most effective methods of learning to philosophize,
students are encouraged to motivate themselves to study and
explore philosophical issues by themselves. In an attempt to
achieve this traditional end of philosophical education we, as
graduate teaching assistants and as students, designed and
participated in a graduate seminar on contemporary theories
of knowledge. This experimental seminar presents a practical
solution to the constant problem of stimulating students to
think for themselves.
The impetus for the seminar was threefold. First, having a
strong interest in various problems in the theory of knowledge
and having encountered recurrent epistemological themes in
the history of philosophy, we wanted to participate in a graduate
level seminar in later twentieth century epistemology, despite
the fact that such a course was not formally offered at that
particular time. Second, we believed that it was possible to
create a genuine philosophical inquiry and exchange within the
context of such a seminar. It is essential that prospective
*We express our gratitude to Professor William S. Kraemer who permitted the
seminar to be undertaken and to Professor Harold D. Hantz zyx
who generously
served as adviser. The skill and insight on the part of Professor Hantz have
influenced us profoundly. This paper w
a
s included in the National Workshop-
Conference on Teaching Philosophy, Union College, August 1976.
86

2. A SELF-DIRECTED GRADUATE SEMINAR 87 zy
philosophers master the arts of writing clearly, speaking well,
and framing and responding to questions cogently. We con-
cluded that this program, more than any other, would strengthen
these skills, Third, although the major participants had
experience in teaching introductory philosophy courses, we felt
that it was desirable, if not essential, to gain some experience
in planning upper division courses. All too frequently, graduate
students who hold teaching assistantships or fellowships, if
they are permitted to design their own courses at all, are
normally Iimited to lower or intermediate level underqraduate
courses. Consequently, they have little experience in deter-
mining and presenting topics, selecting texts, assessing student
performances, and evaluating their own performances in more
advanced undergraduate or graduate courses.
The unique features of the seminar were due mainly to this
third stimulus. Since the course was both designed and com-
pletely conducted by the students themselves, increased student
motivation, among other benefits, resulted. The traditional
goals of a graduate seminar were made accessible through the
vested interest of the students. While the best techniques and
most effective methods of traditional teaching were drawn
upon in planning the course, it is believed that the character of
the course, as it emerged in theory and in practice, was quite
non-traditional.
This report is directed to both students and faculty members.
However, it is chiefly aimed at students of philosophy because
any success in a seminar of this type is dependent upon student
initiative, inquiry and motivation. It is addressed to faculty
members in the hope that serious proposals for courses of this
type may receive objective consideration. zyxw
Procedure: The procedure of the seminar will be explained
in terms of the texts: the participants, their roles and diities;
and the format. It is important to point out that the entire
responsibility for the eficacy of this procedure is borne by the
planning of the students even though it is facilitated bv an
adviser. The seminar format, itself, is not entirely original.
TEXTS. The seminar was planned to put emphasis on
specific topics in contemporary epistemology rather than upon
the viewpoints of individual philosophers. The specific topics
of study included a historical sketch of some main epistemo-
logical themes; the relation of epistemology to philosophy in
general; and the problems of knowledge and belief, scepticism
and certainty, truth, memory, and perception. The primary

3. 88 zyxwvuts
LEE C. ARCHIE AND B. G. HURDLE JR. zyxw
texts were A. J. Ayer’s zyxwv
The Problem zyx
of Knowledge, A. R.
White’s Truth, D. Locke’s Memory, and G. Vesey’ Perception.
Selected portions of A. D. Woozley’s Theory of Knowledge and
Bertrand Russell’s Problems of Philosophy were used concur-
rently with the above texts. As is usual in graduate seminars,
considerable use was also made of secondary sources, including
current journal articles, related to the issues discussed in the
texts.
PARTICIPANTS, ROLES, AND DUTIES. The principal
participants in the seminar were three graduate students (two
master’s candidates and one doctoral candidate) and a faculty
adviser. Several additional graduate students audited the course
and participated on a limited basis.
The weekly meetings were modeled after the well-known
symposium format zyxwv
: the three major roles being those of speaker
(who presented the main paper), critic (who presented a critique
of the paper), and moderator (who insured orderly discussions).
The faculty adviser did not serve in these three roles. In general,
the procedure of a class meeting consisted of the presentation
of an original paper accompanied by a critique of that paper
followed by a general discussion involving all participants.
The speaker had the option of choosing for his topic a specific
issue arising from the assigned readings. His paper was a critical
essay rather than a commentary, outline, or pr6cis of the read-
ings. The critic evaluated, commented upon, and offered ad-
ditional response to the speaker’s thesis. This need not have been
and, in fact, was not limited to negative criticism; many times,
the critic offered a counter-proposal as well. However, if the
speaker presented something other than a genuine attempt to
clarify and suggest solutions for the pivotal epistemologial issues,
the critic was expected to correct this deficiency by forcing the
speaker to undertake a position during the class discussion. In
this regard, the meetings achieved what is conventionally sought
in a graduate seminar.
The moderator, in addition to guiding the time-segments of
the class meetings, was expected to question the speaker and
critic, to clarify and summarize their arguments, and to intro-
duce other considerations relevant to the field of inquiry. The
moderator also directed the discussions to salient issues in the
readings which were not specifically included in the paper-
critique discussion. The moderator’s role proved to be a crucial
one for the success of the sessions. Others (as well as the
speaker, critic, and faculty adviser) took part in a general

4. A zyxwvutsr
SELF-DIRECTED GRADUATE SEMINAR 89 zy
discussion and analysis of arguments raised by the speaker and
critic. At times this discussion became quite liveiy, and zy
a
participant not familiar with the assigned readings for the
week could scarcely hope to contribute to the diqcussion. In
a conventional seminar, the professor functions as moderator.
We tend to believe that when a student assumes this role, the
IJther students become more responsive.
FORMAT. The class met for two and one-half hour sessions
every week for fourteen weeks. The meetings were carefully
structured in order to facilitate the assigned functions of the
participants. First, the speaker and the critic were allotted one-
half how each for the presentation of their arguments. Second,
in order to focus the specific points of agrPement and disagree-
ment, the moderator conducted a short discussior: period
between the critic and speaker. Since three to five days elapsed
between the date when the papers and critiques were due and
the day when they were presented, they frequently reflected
additions and revisions. Third, the remainder of the session
was devoted to general examination of these theses, other issues
in the assigned readings, and related topics.
The procedure of each class meeting was expedited by the
fact that all participants, as well as the faculty adviser, had
typewritten copies of both the paper and the critique well in
advance of the meeting itself. This is a unique feature of the
seminar: the speaker presented a draft of his paper to the
critic and other members of the seminar zyxw
no zyx
less than zy
fue zy
days
prior to the class meeting in which he would present the paper.
The critic submitted copies of his critique to the other members
no less than three days prior to the class meeting in which he
would present his critique. In practice this followed a fixed
schedule: since the class meetings were held on Mondays,
papers were due on the preceding Wednesdays and critiques
were due on the preceding Fridays.
The schedule of reading assignments was prepared prior to
the beginning of the semester. The semester was divided into
an introductory two-week segment followed by four three-
week segments corresponding to the following subjects : (1)
historical background, (2) knowledge and belief, (3) perception,
(4) memory, and zyxwv
(5) truth. zyxw
The assigned readings each week
averaged forty-five pages.
Assignments of duties as speaker, critic, and moderator were
made by random drawings at the beginning of the semester.
They were made on a rotating basis such that each participant

5. 90 zyxwvut
LEE zyxwvu
C. ARCHIE AND B. zyxwv
C. HURDLE JR.
presented a paper (was speaker) every third week. On the other
two weeks he served as either critic or moderator. Consequently,
during the semester each participant gave four papers on
different subjects, four critiques on different subjects, and
moderated four times on different subjects. (Assignment of
duties was arranged so that, for example, the same speaker and
critic were not matched four times in succession.) This may
seem somewhat involved-it was in practice made quite simple
by mimeographing and distributing a course schedule at the
beginning of the semester.
The papers and critiques averaged five to six typewritten
pages. Because all members of the class were familiar with the
assigned readings, the papers and critiques were directed to an
informed audience and, as in a conventional seminar, were both
concentrated in style and narrow in scope. zyxw
Evaluation: This evaluation of the seminar is in no sense
scientific. The small number of students involved and its single
occurrence preclude any sort of comparative or statistical
study. Thus, the evaluation will be an informal one. At the
conclusion of the course, each participant prepared a detailed
written appraisal of the seminar and its various aspects. The
following remarks will reflect those evaluations. However, it
Will also reflect assessments that the participants have formu-
lated concerning the course itself and its effects upon subsequent
philosophical studies and teaching in the three years since the
seminar was conducted.
TEXTS. In retrospect, the above mentioned texts seemed to
have been an adequate choice. However, as one result of
working through the selected texts, we acknowledge that there
are other equally suitable and perhaps more appropriate sets
of readings: either a judicious selection of reprints and
photocopies of the significant papers in the twentieth century
theory of knowledge or an anthology which incorporates these
papers. The books by Ayer, Russell, and Woozley might have
been read by the participants prior to the course as summer
reading. Indeed, a short preliminary list of background readings
to be mastered in advance of the course would have been
a helpful prerequisite. (Obviously, any selection of texts is
dependent upon the intended subject of study. For example, if
a course proposed to concentrate on the problem of memory
alone, one might wish to use several book-length works and/or
journal articles.)
The texts did yield a balanced measure of background

6. A SELF-DIRECTED GRADUATE SEMINAR 91zy
information and critical comment; consequently, in relation to
the goals of the course, the major aspects of contemporary
epistemology were given adequate consideration. Nevertheless,
there did appear to be several disadvantages with the use of
these books. First, because of the complexity of the epistemo-
logical issues which were presented in several of the books,
one frequently felt that the scope of the material, after pursuing
references, was much too extensive. For example, in reading
the books by White and Locke, one frequently wanted to
investigate further the many theories, problems, and proposals
briefly referred to by both authors. Indeed, the need to have a
deeper understanding of these points became apparent when
one was faced with the task of writing and defending a critical
essay on them. Second, in another sense, the scope of the
material in general often seemed restrictive. There was relatively
little treatment of or exposure to such problem-areas as religious
or aesthetic knowledge, practical knowledge, and the problem
of other minds. The scientific perspectives on such questions
as those of memory and perception were, for the most part,
unexplored despite their importance. These areas were con-
tinually touched upon, but none was dealt with systematically.
Yet, neither of these disadvantages was viewed as critical.
Similar considerations are inherent in any course proposal, and
in every case a decision must be made as to what should be
included and what must be excluded. In this particular instance,
any attempt to resolve these disadvantages might have led to
an imbaIance elsewhere.
FORMAT. The class procedure of discussing papers, critiques,
and the readings turned out to be an effective and successful
one in practice. While this traditional aspect of the course is
not inherently successful, we could envision no other general
scheme which would have worked better although others may
have worked equally well. It was felt that several additional
students would have enhanced the course. Ideally, the sym-
posium format is designed for and functions best in the context
of a larger group.
Despite the fact that meetings had been held, preparations
had been made, and formal preparations (papers, critiques, and
prepared remarks) had been completed prior to the class meeting
itself, it was concluded that the weekly sessions were not only
beneficial but necessary. zyxw
As in all seminars, when the partici-
pants sought to defend a point of view, the controversy was
exciting. At such sessions the discussion was intense and

7. 92 zyxwvu
LEE zyxwvuts
C. ARCHIE AND zyxwv
B. zyxw
G. HURDLE JR.
regularly spilled over after class hours. On many occasions
significant issues not specifically covered either in the papers
or in the readings were introduced. Here many more questions
were raised than answered: too frequently we wondered if most
disputes were merely verbal ones. We constantly wondered
whether there are exclusively philosophical questions (as
opposed to scientific or psychological questions}in the theory of
knowledge, and we wondered about the scientist’s role in all of
this. Problems were put aside in the meetings only to have new
ones immediately take their place. Few issues were resolved
and at times this was profoundly frustrating. Yet this exposure
to the many problems and to the main ways they may be
approached seems in retrospect to be one of the most valuable
features of the seminar.
Because the course was, to a great extent, structured around
the papers and critiques several observations about these are
appropriate even though they are standard features of most
seminars. First, the papers and critiques, though brief by some
criteria, were generally attempts at original criticism of the
readings. A second advantage was derived simply from the
constant writing. The participants benefited enormously not
only from having to master and evaluate the assignments in a
relatively short time (this much was always presupposed), but
also from having to express their views in an intelligible and
defensible form. Over the course of the semester, the partici-
pants were able to see an increase both in the quality of their
papers and in their facility for writing original essays. The
result was a greater confidence in one’s ability to do philosophy,
and this factor has had a marked effect on subsequent philo-
sophical studies. Third, the practice of distributing the papers
and critiques before the class meetings was particularly effective.
Not only did it enable the members of the seminar to prepare
their remarks beforehand, but it freed a considerable amount
of class time to refine and develop the issues raised in the
papers. Finally, while the faculty adviser in this seminar did
not serve either as a speaker, critic, or moderator, he certainly
need not be excluded from these roles in similar courses.
The writing, critique, and discussion of papers is, of course,
nothing new in a graduate seminar. Nevertheless, since the
responsibility for the success of this traditional format rested
solely on the students themselves, the often-sought ideal of
sustained student interest and concern were made possible.
Conclusiun: Perhaps the single most important factor in the

8. A SELF-DIRECTED GRADUATE SEMINAR 93 zy
success of this self-directed seminar was the motivation on the
part of the participants resulting from the fact that the course
was in a very real sense “our” course. It was not simply another
course given by someone else (or offered by the department)
which we chose or were required to take. Since the partici-
pants had invested considerable time and effort in planning
the seminar, the responsibility for its failure or success in
practice was keenly and continuously felt.
Furthermore, it is necessary for the success of such a seminar
that the faculty adviser not use the course as a vehicle for his
own purposes, nor monopolize its functioning in any way.
While the adviser’s role is not fixed, he should provide what
might be termed a “presence of authority and expertise”. This
is not to say that the adviser should not or cannot take an
active part in the discussions. Indeed, because of his com-
petence, he would be expected to do so. However, it is also
incumbent upon the adviser to exercise restraint and discipline,
and for one who has had a great deal of teaching experience
and a familiarity with the area of study, it is perhaps the most
difficult role of all.
While it is not always easy to say in hindsight that any
particular course was successful or, if so, why it was successful,
this can clearly be said in some cases. We submit that the
present self-directed seminar is such a case. This judgment is
based upon several factors. First, because the participants were
highly motivated the course material was not so much studied
as lived. There was constant interaction among the members
of the class. Second, the students were unanimous in their
belief that they had learned not only a great deal of information
but, perhaps more important, had become more self-assured in
their ability to do philosophy. Third, the course provided
valuable lessons in the techniques of conducting upper level
courses. At the very least the participants’ horizons had been
greatly expanded. Simply because one has always taught or
always been taught in a certain way does not mean that way
is necessarily the best way. Finally, all of these factors were
supported by an additional evaluation-that of the faculty
adviser.
In conclusion we do not claim that this is a completely
novel approach. Yet, while most of the techniques may have
been used before in related forms, we are not familiar with
any published accounts where students developed their own
procedures. We believe our efforts and results may be of some

9. 94 zyxwvut
LEE C. ARCHIE AND B. zyxwvu
G. HURDLE JR. zyxw
value to other philosophers because at the same time the
method embodied in this self-directed seminar zyx
: (1) provides
one means of familiarizing philosophy students with the
mechanics of teaching zyxw
upper division courses, (2) yields import-
ant pedagogical results for the graduate student both as student
and as philosopher, and (3) compels students to seek solutions
for specific philosophical problems.
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS