For Kenneth Brufee collaboration in the composition classroom is primarily a means of allowing students to think better and, therefore, write better. He traces the development and use of the term “collaborative learning” from the 1950’s and M.L.J. Abercrombie who found that British medical students learned “good medical judgment” more quickly when they worked together to diagnose patients to more modern (1980’s) applications of collaboration learning in writing pedagogy and peer tutoring groups, which, he argues often provide students with an opportunity to receive help in a setting that does not merely offer an extension of the composition classroom. Using theorists ranging from Vygostsky to Burke, Brufee proposes a view of language that sees reflective thought as an artifact of human interaction and writing as a reworking of this thought for public transmission. He argues, therefore, that collaboration mimics the way that knowledge is produced by granting students the opportunity to participate in “normal discourse,” or discourse among a group of equals. Because this group is also unschooled in all of the rules and conventions of academic discourse and academic knowledge, it is also more likely to approach problems and ideas differently and to produce new knowledge. Collaboration, he argues, does not provide particularly new concepts, but collaborative learning is new in its systematic application of these concepts. He warns, however, that collaborative learning will not be useful if it is not guided—that without guidance, peer groups of students will likely resort to conformity and anti-intellectualism.
Trimbur addresses to specific criticisms of collaborative learning—the concern that the consensus produced by peer groups is tantamount to groupthink and undermines individual voices and the fear that collaborative learning dismisses difference and inequality. Trimbur proposes that instead of seeing consensus as requiring accommodation and silencing of divergent views, we should see it as an opportunity to identify differences. He argues that we must distinguish between real consensus, which allows all participants equal voice and power, and spurious consensus, which erases some voices in an effort for conformity and efficiency. He suggests that in its best form, collaboration challenges the authoritarian role of the teacher and allows students to create social activity.
Joe Harris produces a critique of the word “community.” He argues that community suggests a positive term that combines likeminded people, stabilizing them behind a shared purpose. In reality, he argues, communities are amorphous and vague with hazy borders and competing beliefs. He suggests that part of our pedagogy should include an examination of the dissonance within and between communities.
Through close readings of student placement essays, David Bartholomae concludes that young writers have complex and often frustrating relationships to academic discourse. Discourse, he argues, “determines what writers can and will do.” The classroom often fails to encourage students to see themselves as colleagues working on academic projects, which exacerbates a feeling of disenfranchisement. For Bartholomae, every discourse community has its own codes and conventions which need to be made much more transparent in our classrooms if our students are going to learn how to write “within and against conventional systems.”
Mike Rose argues against a remedial system of composition by examining the semantics and trivializing language used in and around the teaching of writing. He argues that the negative language ought to be replaced by more “precise and pedagogically fruitful analysis.” As presently constituted, language activity within Composition studies more often sequesters and quarantines and stigmatizes students rather than opening toward a larger academic community.
OUR G-CHAT:
Marian: okay--so Spencer, what do you think are the implications of these readings for
teaching? One of the things I kept thinking about was the role of conversation in teaching
and how conversation might be more or less useful in peer groups
Spencer: . I like what you said yesterday about complicating the notion of community. The more I think about it, the more facebook and social networking feels like a community that doesn't feel all that united or cohesive.
We have two things going now.
Marian: that's a good point
Spencer: which should we address?
Marian: but the word community is always supposed to be positive
so we can slap it onto things like f.b. and suddenly it's supposed to be cohesive and productive
Spencer: exactly
Marian: when, honestly, it's shaggy at best and a little creepy. I'm wondering if we might need to use another word
Spencer: I agree. Community gets thrown around like it means something. Doesn’t that go to the core of what people really want--to belong?
Marian: to describe a multiplicity of identities that exist within a person or group
Marian: hmmn. . well are these communities started by individuals? I mean, is this ppl saying, "hey I feel disconnected" Or are ppl being thrown together to pacify and control them
(yes. . I sound paranoid. . but I think a sense of solidarity without actual action tends to be common)
Spencer: on one hand society seems to push communities, on the other hand Bartholomae argues that the classroom is all about creating separation and private spaces
Marian: but shouldn't be, right? Isn't that what he advocates for? this acknowledgement of the ways in which academy creates an elite and reduces the group of ppl permitted to speak
Spencer: yes, i think that's a big problem. i think he's saying this is why it's so hard for some students to appropriate academic discourse--and it’s not because they aren't smart
Marian: yes--that there's a barrier of rules. BUT--there's also the idea of "abnormal speech" and how it can complicate and reinvigorate dialogues
Spencer: How so?
Marian: like the person who confuses the chess pro because he hasn't played a lot and makes unconventional moves
Spencer: good point. in some sense you ought to be making unconventional moves in writing. The safest essays for Bartholomae were the weakest.
Marian: right! so, ironically, it's this fear and safety that undermines productivity
Spencer: yes! you're almost penalized for playing it safe. Even the students who just faked it, used big words, complex construction, fared better. They seized that authority
Marian: Trimbur talks about this too. and this is very very true for fiction too. At AWP I went to several panels where the editors said again and again they wanted something fresh and authoritative, "an author in control,” "an original voice."
Spencer: right, right. in a sense, the classroom homogenizes is what you're saying
Marian: BUT--this is exactly what gets first removed from our stories. we think, oh no, i need to do this right! And we forget to simply speak
Spencer: that's true. you get gun shy, you put rules forward and principles forward. In the worst case, and I know both of us have been here, it takes the fun out of writing
Marian: I think that we forget to create spaces in c.w. especially that are hospitable
right!
Spencer: one isn't encouraged to take chances really.
Marian: I spent so much type mapping out published stories in my MFA
exactly but look at something like "Where are You Going, Where Have you been"
the first third is so unconventional. well about a third of the story is a slow description of habitual time, right? her name was Connie.. . she had a habit of __
but this is so true of JCO
I mean, the lady does what she wants. In some ways she's very conventional
Spencer: or the lorrie moore story, you're ugly too, does a similar thing. first half she's on the phone
Marian: but she's also writing stories that only she could write
me: yes
Marian: yes. Lorrie Moore is a great example. so--I"m not saying you don't need to know the discourse. i'm just saying engendering confidence is not a waste of time in the classroom
Spencer: But how do you bestow that authority in classroom?
Marian: oh good question. i think a start is not to tear people's work apart, or to think turning in something "unpublishable" is a crime. I think writing lots of different small pieces is good
letting students play and have fun while taking it seriously. "serious play"
Spencer: because...what you are saying is that this isn't a problem of the composition classroom, this problem of cordoning off authoritative spaces goes all the way up to graduate writing, right?
Marian: oh yes. I think so. I think in some ways it's much worse the more students care. i mean our teachers are like gods to us
Spencer: right
Marian: which is maybe problematic
Spencer: hugely
Marian: but most comp kids don't remember our names by the next semester. BUT-we all applied here to work with these ppl. so if they dismiss our work in class, we're much more likely to try to stop being original
Spencer: well, the problem can swing the other way too: the classroom can get to idealistic, too supportive. everything gets celebrated. And in some ways, I wrote better when I didn’t know any rules or feel any pressure.
Marian: yes. it's really hard to find a balance. Work hard and know the rules but don't lose your voice or the idea that writing is fun
Spencer: and often times the best writing is the writing the teacher wont recognize. the writing that doesn't echo his or her own voice.
Marian: oh right
Spencer: what happens when teachers don't see themselves or their values replicated in the student's writing
marian: well, i think it's really important for teachers (us) to read widely and to be open to lots of different aesthetics because the field changes
Spencer: well, so what is the role of collaborative writing in all of this?
marian: i think that what t. yanique said about asking students who they are reading
is a great idea. I think part of it is the peer to peer connection. that the "normal community" that exists between peers is so important and obviously you and I agree about that since we just planned a writing exchange
Spencer: that's true.
marian: the idea that peers in some ways are more invested and also more able to see what you're doing.
Spencer: But we both feel like we can talk about this stuff, I wonder what happens when you leave two students alone who feel like they don't have anything to say
marian: oh that's a good point. And I think i have just 2 things to say
1. and i'm stealing this from a mentee, is that he has students do some fun activities--what do you think about pop culture" activities before they have to share work, so that they get to know each other?
Spencer: like favorite movie?
marian: right--just like a 5 minute chatty session at the beginning of group time I think it's kind of a good idea in some ways though I can see the problem
Spencer: i like it. that's pretty smart
marian: but--his point is that you have to create a friendly open environment that it doesn't just happen and that there are also ways of making this time productive.
No comments:
Post a Comment