Collaboration--Spencer/Marian

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.

The Role of Collaboration/Community

Our group's collaborative process consisted of an email conversation, a combination of contributions, and a wordle wrap-up. Here are the results of our conversation:

Elizabeth: From Bruffee comes the understanding that collaborative learning is going to happen no matter what--it's legitimate and key to the way (he understands) knowledge to be made. So, it makes sense for composition theorists to carefully examine social aspects of writing, and it makes sense for composition instructors to be aware of the theory, so they can avoid the potential pitfalls of uninspired collaborative learning in the classroom. I think the ideas of community and collaboration from this week's readings connect to the last two collections of "Difference" reading--Harris, especially, in his meditations on the word "community" reinforces the notion of grounding educational experience within a local context. One more thing--these readings helped me see the importance of fostering awareness of collaborative practices. Honestly, in the past I've had my students do a lot of collaborative work because being social seems to equal fun for them. Now, I have to think more carefully about how the collaboration is scaffolded, especially considering the power structure within the classroom community in which the collaboration is to take place.

Stephen: Elizabeth took the words right out of my mouth (or off of my keyboard, I guess): the notion of community and collaboration in the composition classroom provides a direct link from our pedagogy and our curriculum to the social nature of composition. What our students are trying to do, at least according to Bartholomae, is situate themselves and their writing with in a community (discourse, academic, disciplinary, etc.) that, in the case of the entering Pitt freshmen, they know nothing about except that it is big and scary and that it probably requires the same kinds of "writing" that their high school teachers asked them to do. Never mind the intimidation factor that has to play into what these students actually wrote; the point is that they know they have to adapt without knowing what it is they are adapting to (i.e., none of the essays B. presented used what could be invariably called a "home language." Which tells us that even the most basic writers are aware of the social nature of writing. And so difference (or dissensus) is the elephant already sniffing at the number two pencils or blue books or whatever they use to write their entrance essays, i.e. it's something that students are capable of dealing with. Which I think is interesting.

Stacy: Great thoughts, both of you. Although collaboration and community clearly have some overlaps in the reading, I do think we want to be careful about conflating them completely. This could just be because I've spent considerable time with discourse community readings for my thesis, whereas the collaboration pieces are new to me. So, for me, the idea of community contributes, as Stephen said, to our understanding of composition as socially situated. I think it adds to that understanding in useful ways, as it allows us to consider how composition is not only situated in and influenced by the culture at large, but also more locally, by the particular demands of a given environment (say, a specific discipline within the academy - echoes of Bazerman here). Bartholomae introduces this idea, which is complicated by Harris. I think Harris makes a particularly good point that community can be a dangerous term because it is a positive with no negative. His suggestions for concretizing the term to allow for both positive and negative aspects is, I think, important to our consideration of community. Trimbur and Harris both discuss the idea of consensus. I felt Trimbur's piece was a bit overly utopian (heterotopian), but I did think his idea of consensus as something that could be used as tool in collaboration rather than a necessary end goal had traction. I remain unsure of how I could institute such an idea in my pedagogy when I necessarily still hold a position of authority in my classroom. Bruffee and Rose both offered insightful considerations of the way that we talk about teaching writing and the way that we actually go about doing it. Rose points out that highly politicized conversations about what writing is and what use it is in the academy have trapped us into a certain way of thinking about and teaching composition. I'm distressed that these conversations still seem so current more than twenty years after the publication of this piece. I don't have much to say about the Bruffee that you two didn't already cover, so I'll leave that, I think.

Writing in Groups: An Interesting Study

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/carnegie-mellon-researchers-find-crowds-can-write-as-well-as-individuals/29440

Other-ness

A view from the public: what does *it* add to the mix?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/arts/design/27ligon.html

And some quotes.

On identity:

His big break came in 1989, when he got a grant from theNational Endowment for the Arts. “I thought if the government thinks I’m an artist, then I must be one,” he said. He started making art full time.

On the technology of composing:

Mr. Ligon forms letters with stencils because “it’s a way to be semi-echanical, to make letters that are not handwriting but have personality,” he said. “Handwriting would make these quotations too much mine, and stencils give it a bit more distance. They also allow me to keep being painterly but also have the kind of content I want a painting to have.” And rather than use oil paint, which can get messy, he uses oil stick, so that each letter has a more defined quality. For some works he has also flocked the canvas with coal dust to give it a textured, glittering feeling.

Neon sculptures create yet another message, a kind of 21st-century signage that hints at advertising but is quite the opposite of promotional. On the first floor of Mr. Ligon’s studio building is Lite Brite Neon, a custom lighting fabrication studio where, on a recent visit, the “negro sunshine” sculpture was being made for the Whitney’s window. On a long work table the perfectly made letters spelling out “negro” rested against a white metal backing. As Mr. Ligon inspected the progress, he explained that the front of the letters will be painted black, for a shadow play between light and dark. In the show there will also be neon wall reliefs that spell out just one word — “America” — from which the retrospective’s title was taken.

Difference and the Difference It Makes

Difference, as we see in this week's readings, can take many forms. What do we see in composition theory when difference is added to the mix?

Reflection

So I posted a reflection on my own portfolio, in response to the query about the difference between a field and a discipline: it turns out to have been a very productive question for my thinking ;) See http://www.wix.com/kyancey/demo3 (the tab labeled reflection ;) The other point I wanted to make was that as much as I like r/c as a discipline (no surprise there), I like the big picture, which I don't think we have had. So it's fascinating to me--and helpful--to see how what I understand R/C to be play out in the larger universe, which includes k-12 and creative writing. Last week, I especially appreciated the discussion about formalism as technique keyed to genre, which makes formalism look very different and is a healthy corrective. Looking forward to more of the same tomorrow ;) k