I argue that there are at least two kinds of tacit premises; describe a certain type of counterexample against the validity of arguments, and then use it to identify one kind of tacit premise. I distinguish two classes of tacit premises on the grounds that they are discovered or constructed differently, they have different roles in an argument or causal explanation, and have different logical relations to each other.

I explore a distinction that is philosophically significant but rarely a cynosure. The distinction is betvveen fallacies and logical errors, and I approach it by advancing overlooked albeit deleterious logical errors that are not fallacies but that fall squarely within the purview of Critical Thinking if not also Informal Logic. One key claim to emerge is that these logical errors -- just as basic and thought-impeding as the fallacies -- demand that we take a hard look at what is and what should be guiding our activity in teaching such courses. Another is that although philosophers appeal to the notion of logical error in their explications of fallacies, the former notion is anything but clear and indeed usually explained in terms of the latter. Yet another is that the distinction illustrates why the oft encountered “false premise or bad inference” account of how thinking can go bad is oversimplified.

There is a tendency to swing to extremes in evaluating arguments based on appeal to popular opinion. Traditional logic textbooks have portrayed the argumentum ad populum, or appeal to popular opinion, as a fallacy. In contrast, many arguments based on appeal to public opinion in marketing of commercial products do not seem all that unreasonable. Three cases of commercial ads are studied. The problem posed is that of building an objective structure for evaluating such arguments that does not swing, without any objective basis for judging cases, to the one extreme or the other. This article provides such a structure. One part of it is the identifying of the argumentation schemes (forms of argtunent) for the various species of ad populum arguments involved. The other part of the structure is dialectical, referring to the conversational context in which two speech partners reason together in a collaborative goal-directed exchange.

This text uses an analysis of the problem of “intertextuality” to deconstruct Foucault’s critique of bourgeois rationality as a suggestion for metaphors in the social sciences, education included. It accepts“intertextuality” as a space that dissolves the distance between subject, object, and text. In so doing “intertextuality” takes the postmodern suggestion that “fiction” can be as informative as “fact” seriouslyand evidentially uses examples from fiction to “show” the dangers of postmodern discourse. In closing this text suggests questions that must be resolved before postmodernism can be useful for the construction of metaphors in the social sciences.

Peer learning partnerships are voluntary, reciprocal helping relationships between individuals of comparable status, who share a common or closely related learning / development objective. These dyadic or small group partnerships often occur incidentally or are confused with mentoring; hence they are easily overlooked and / or misunderstood. Yet they warrant the attention of professional developers,classroom teachers, and others as an intentionallearning strategy because of their potential to foster bi-directional learning through joint reflection.Using her qualitative case study of peer learning partnerships in an innovative statewide community college faculty development initiative - the “Teaching Partners Program” - the author draws on participants’ first-hand perceptions of this alternative modality to demonstrate how it fosters reflective practice, leading to enhanced discovery and professional development. The study’s findings highlight the benefits of using peer learning partnerships to promote reflective practice, as well as barriers to utilization. Recommendations for applying this approach and for future research are provided.

In this research article I reconstitute portfolio assessment of my work as a new faculty member in the form of critical reflexive dialogue. I reassemble artifacts of my works-in-process in a vocational portfolioin order to signal that quality in my work is nuanced as a calling to serve. This metaphor entails portfolio assessment that does not isolate the adult learner and worker from self-assessment and others’assessment. I structure my portfolio dialogically so that my evaluators and I can respond critically to the processes and products of my teacher, researcher, and service worker identities. My artifacts ofdialogical occasions denaturalize the feminine in work and disrupt the hierarchy of knowledge over service. I reassemble my quality moments to support my espoused theory and theory-in-use that servingothers in response-able relationship constitutes the linked resemblance of quality across the three traditional evaluative categories of teaching, research, and service.

Conducting research as a member of a cross-cultural team offers numerous methodological challenges, not the least of which is negotiating insider / outsider statuses. In reflecting upon these issues, this article draws from experiences encountered by an insider / outsider team interviewing Malaysian older adults. From gaining access to participants, to the “communal” setting of the interview, to askingmeaningful questions through translation, we experienced the slippage and fluidity, the advantages and disadvantages of being both insider and outsider. Our experiences are analyzed first through thetraditional definitions of insider and outsider, then through more contemporary critical and postmodern frameworks. From these perspectives, concepts of positionality power, and knowledge constructionare discussed for their value in mirroring the cross-cultural dimension of this research, and our insider / outsider positions within the process.

Lecture was the most prevalent teaching style in the colleges and universities we attended. Hired as a lecturer by a local university, the lead author choose to approach teaching based on two principles: first to teach the way she preferred to learn, which is in groups, and second to be both a teacher and a fellow learner.Ten adult practitioners were enrolled in the graduate course Iisted as “The Trainer/Manager as Coach.” This article includes their experiences along with those of the instructor / facilitator.Critical thinking and critical self-reflection are ways to help participants explore assumptions about coaching and particularly about their roles as coaches in the workplace. Critical thinking is a means of examining assumptions by identifying patterns in ourselves and in others-patterns that influence our thinking and subsequent actions. Critical self-reflection is “challenging the vaIidity of presuppositions in prior learning” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 14). Our purpose together was to develop critical thinking skills and practice critical self-reflection as they related to coaching within our practices.Participants used time between class sessions for integration of learning and self-reflection on their own assumptive worlds. Students participated in electronic dialogue and in action research. The online dialogue provided opportunities to share experiences from our places of work. It further served as a collaborative means for building a knowledge base from onIine discussion of coaching literature.Action research is a means of studying one’s practice for the purpose of improvement. Students applied an action research model to a workplace problem that involved them in the role of coach.The results were transformational for all co-Iearners. Changes took pIace in our approaches to coaching. Changes in the focus of coaching, from focusing on the coach to focusing on the learner, are prevalent.

Through case studies of women from Muslim cultures, we explore the impact of cultural interaction in an adult learning program. Teaching these students has challenged our usual methods, provoking questions about our student-centered pedagogy, which values critical reflection and personal narrative. While their religion restricts women in public life, these students are educational innovators andentrepreneurs, eager to introduce more progressive practices back horne, yet as Muslims they respect their culture and do not advocate the abolition of traditional customs. We explore both the impact ofthese women on our learning community as weIl as their perception of their educational experience. Our paper raises questions about the hegemonic implications of student-centered, feminist teachingmodels that valorize voice and critical thinking. By tracing the educational experiences of these students we explore the advantages and the costs of our own pedagogy.