Excuse me while I type out loud about the 612 sample question of the comprehensive examination. feel free to add what you know or just ignore it altogether as it is not directly related to 658.
The sample 612 question--"Collaboration has long been a staple of composition teachers. However, as the scholarship shows, collaboration has been constructed in different was and or different purposes in relation to (a) particular historical needs and (b) particular theories of language. In a thoughtful, well-crafted essay, discuss how and why our understandings of collaboration have changed since "the social turn" in composition. What are some of the problems and possibilities that compositionists have explored in relation to these new articulations of collaboration and its functions? Your answer should attend to both historical and theoretical concerns as they relate to our understandings of language, knowledge, and meaning making, our evolving sense of the subject matter of composition, and the various student populations we see in our classrooms."
Bruffee adds to Kuhn and Rorty's thoughts of normal discourse. He uses Rorty's "conversation of mankind" and tells us in his essay Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind, that "Collaborative learning began to interest American college teachers widely only in the 1980s" although collaboration had alread been proven successful in the medical field by the 1960s. MLJ Abercrombie found that "diagnosis [...] is better learned in small groups of students arriving at disgnoses collaboratively than in it is learned by students working individually" (416, 417).
Bruffee tells us that "the roots of collaborative learning" are found "in the nearly desperate response of harried colleges during the early 1970s to a pressing educational need" (417). Basically, Bruffee is saying that students were unprepared for college writing and, because the traditional methods did not work, there was a need for alternative methods of teaching writing/composition. Of course collaboration was not the first alternative method that was explored. Tutoring and counceling as well as other programs were tried but failed. The element of these programs that seemed to be missing was that there were not peers involved in them. because there was not the peer element, which turned out to be essential. According to Bruffee "students' work tended to improve when they got help from peers" (418). Peers evaluating each other and working together in small groups to make progress, a couple of methods of collaborative learning, were being explored with success. Their work improved when working with peers. Collaboration did not change what they learned but just added a social element to how they learned.
According to Bruffee in collaborative learning, the goal is for students to assist each other in entering a knowledge community (business, government, and the professions). Bruffee acknowledges the view that students helping other students enter a knowledge community when none of the students are members of the knowledge community to begin with might seem like "the blind leading the blind" (427). But he suggests they put their resources together. Combined, according to Bruffee, students should be able to complete the task assigned, one of the stepts that will lead toward them entering the knowledge community in their sights. This is what Richard Rorty calls "socially justifying belief" (426). If all of the members of the group can come together and agree, then they can justify their belief. It is not that they create truth but rather they become a part of the ongoing "conversation of mankind." Bruffee discusses Rorty's belief that in normal discourse "eveyone agrees on the 'set of conventions about what counts as relevant contribution, what counts as a question, what counts as having a good argument for that answer or a cood criticism of it'" (423). Bruffee says that when students pool their resources together, they will partake in the "normal discourse" that is needed to reach a consensus.
In Reality, Consensus, and Reform in the Rhetoric of Composition Teaching, Meyers criticizes the idea that a group will be educated enough to pull together enough knowledge for a single area of focus. He says that we should "realize that knowledge is not uniformly distributed in our society, and that it is not all of a piece" (452). This, to me, means that because each member of a group may be so extremely different that it could be that only one of the members will actually have a meaningful or helpful contribution for a given topic while the rest of the group will remain on the outskirts. And if all of these folks are individual members of different communities and placed into a group that is expected to agree, they will most likely not be able to agree without "one side losing something" (Meyers 452). In most every case, whoever of the group is in the least vocal will lose something, whether it is someone from the upper or lower class, a married or divorced man or woman, a homosexual or homophobic, a member of the dominant culture or a minority, and endlessly so on.
The sample 612 question--"Collaboration has long been a staple of composition teachers. However, as the scholarship shows, collaboration has been constructed in different was and or different purposes in relation to (a) particular historical needs and (b) particular theories of language. In a thoughtful, well-crafted essay, discuss how and why our understandings of collaboration have changed since "the social turn" in composition. What are some of the problems and possibilities that compositionists have explored in relation to these new articulations of collaboration and its functions? Your answer should attend to both historical and theoretical concerns as they relate to our understandings of language, knowledge, and meaning making, our evolving sense of the subject matter of composition, and the various student populations we see in our classrooms."
Bruffee adds to Kuhn and Rorty's thoughts of normal discourse. He uses Rorty's "conversation of mankind" and tells us in his essay Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind, that "Collaborative learning began to interest American college teachers widely only in the 1980s" although collaboration had alread been proven successful in the medical field by the 1960s. MLJ Abercrombie found that "diagnosis [...] is better learned in small groups of students arriving at disgnoses collaboratively than in it is learned by students working individually" (416, 417).
Bruffee tells us that "the roots of collaborative learning" are found "in the nearly desperate response of harried colleges during the early 1970s to a pressing educational need" (417). Basically, Bruffee is saying that students were unprepared for college writing and, because the traditional methods did not work, there was a need for alternative methods of teaching writing/composition. Of course collaboration was not the first alternative method that was explored. Tutoring and counceling as well as other programs were tried but failed. The element of these programs that seemed to be missing was that there were not peers involved in them. because there was not the peer element, which turned out to be essential. According to Bruffee "students' work tended to improve when they got help from peers" (418). Peers evaluating each other and working together in small groups to make progress, a couple of methods of collaborative learning, were being explored with success. Their work improved when working with peers. Collaboration did not change what they learned but just added a social element to how they learned.
According to Bruffee in collaborative learning, the goal is for students to assist each other in entering a knowledge community (business, government, and the professions). Bruffee acknowledges the view that students helping other students enter a knowledge community when none of the students are members of the knowledge community to begin with might seem like "the blind leading the blind" (427). But he suggests they put their resources together. Combined, according to Bruffee, students should be able to complete the task assigned, one of the stepts that will lead toward them entering the knowledge community in their sights. This is what Richard Rorty calls "socially justifying belief" (426). If all of the members of the group can come together and agree, then they can justify their belief. It is not that they create truth but rather they become a part of the ongoing "conversation of mankind." Bruffee discusses Rorty's belief that in normal discourse "eveyone agrees on the 'set of conventions about what counts as relevant contribution, what counts as a question, what counts as having a good argument for that answer or a cood criticism of it'" (423). Bruffee says that when students pool their resources together, they will partake in the "normal discourse" that is needed to reach a consensus.
In Reality, Consensus, and Reform in the Rhetoric of Composition Teaching, Meyers criticizes the idea that a group will be educated enough to pull together enough knowledge for a single area of focus. He says that we should "realize that knowledge is not uniformly distributed in our society, and that it is not all of a piece" (452). This, to me, means that because each member of a group may be so extremely different that it could be that only one of the members will actually have a meaningful or helpful contribution for a given topic while the rest of the group will remain on the outskirts. And if all of these folks are individual members of different communities and placed into a group that is expected to agree, they will most likely not be able to agree without "one side losing something" (Meyers 452). In most every case, whoever of the group is in the least vocal will lose something, whether it is someone from the upper or lower class, a married or divorced man or woman, a homosexual or homophobic, a member of the dominant culture or a minority, and endlessly so on.
John Trimber, in his Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning, points out criticism that questions the expectation of consensus in collaborative learning. He points out that some of Bruffee's critics fear that "the use of consensus in collaborative learning is an inheretly dangerous and potentially totalitarian practice that stifles individual voice and creativity, suppresses differences, and enforces conformity" (461). This relates to Peter Elbow's emphasis of authentic voice. There seems to be a fear that if consensus is achieved, the authentic voices of the individuals within the group will not be heard. There is the fear that the individual will not be able to articulate the unique ideas and be forced to compromise, just as in a totalitarian state. To such critics Bruffee's "social constructionist pedagogy" gives the highest authority to consensus and, therefore, smothers individual thought. Trimbur argues against this fear and sees that collaborative learning "does not ingibit individuality [but] Rather it enables individuals to participate actively and meaningfully in group life" (463). It gives the group power through individuals as collaborative learning "can enable individuals to empower each other through social activity" (Trimbur 464). Trimbur discusses that to gain consensus it is necessary to have conflict. So the idea that not everyone will agree can be adventageous for the group. It seems that there is a place for abnormal discourse in working toward meaningful consensus. Because abnormal discourse consists of individuals straying from consensus, unique thought emerges. Without this sort of rebellion, no originality would come through in the group. According to Bruffee, Rorty discusses that if the authentic voice's contribution is "rational" rather than "losing [the] point," within the collaborative group, it is possible to come across as "revolutionary" (429).
Bruffee points out the possiblity of breakdown in peer tutoring. There may be problems if any one of the following is not in place: (1) the tutee needs "knowledge of the subject [and] assignment;" (2) the tutor should understand "the needs and feelings of peers and [know] the conventions of discourse and of standard written English;" and (3) the conversation between the tutor and tutee should be structured by the assignmnet and "the conventions of academic discourse and standard English" (425). Bruffee tells us that if these are not in place, the teacher is responsible to make the proper adjestments, "to help negotiate the rocks and shoals of social relations that may interfere with their getting on with their work together" (425).
It seems that nearly everything of concern in composition turns out to be a social artifact. Language, knowledge, reading, writing, conversation, thinking...so it follows that if we go about creating collaboratively, we will have an advantage. There is, however, a problem with collaboration if it is expected to be structured like normal discourse, that is without differences in the group. Even in a community, or a collaborative group, everyone is an individual, not just part of the group or community.
“Reflective thought,” according to Oakeshott and Vygotsky is public or social conversation internalized. We learn the skill of conversation by social exchange with others. Bruffee points out that according to Clifford Geertz, ‘“Human thought is consummately social”’ (420). Bruffee goes on, “because thought is internalized conversation, thought and conversation tend to work largely in the same way” (420). Bruffee says that we should teach students to say what they want to write because if they can say it, they will be more likely to be able to write it. However, that is not to say that students will be able to write what they are thinking or saying. According to Bruffee, writing is two steps removed from conversation and one step from thought. Nevertheless, the more students talk about what they want to write and then internalize those conversations about what they talk about, the more likely they will be able to articulate their thoughts into written words. Furthermore, the way they talk determines, according to Bruffee, the way they will write. So it goes to follow that teachers should guide them in how they talk about what they will write. In other words, we should help them talk about their topics so that they talk about them as close as possible to the way we would like them to write about their topics. Bruffee discusses what Richard Rorty calls “normal discourse” in order to discuss the kind of discourse people use in their everyday lives and that it “applies to conversation within a community of knowledgeable peers” (423). According to Rorty everyone agrees within the community. Bruffee says that a main goal of collaborative groups, the goal is for the members of the group to help each other enter a discourse community. Bruffee discusses the problems this raises. Bruffee says that at first glance, there are no experts. But because each member brings something different, collectively, they can help each other.
Bruffee discusses Thomas Kuhn’s idea that knowledge is a social artifact. In other words meaning is made socially. Interpretive communities make knowledge. Bruffee tells us that Rorty calls this a kind of meaning making a “socially justifying belief” (427). This knowledge evolves as the conversations evolve. That is, meaning is not static. That would be to say that social interaction is static. Like social interaction, knowledge involves negotiation. So collaborative learning models how knowledge is made, changes, and grows. According to Bruffee, “ the discourse involved in generating knowledge cannot be normal discourse, since normal discourse maintains knowledge […] It is […] abnormal discourse” (429). Consensus is lost. Abnormal discourse is like rebellious talk that winds up either losing the point because of its oddity or revolutionary as it gains support.
If as Trimbur believes, authority itself is a social artifact, giving students authority to collaborate and make meaning challenges the teacher’s authority. Teachers cannot give up authority altogether. It is their responsibility to induct others into knowledge communities at least in the school setting. Teachers must intervene when knowledge is not being reached, and if they don’t and meaning is not made, knowledge is not arrived at, the community dies, and the knowledge dies with it. The social construct of authority is necessary for a group to function. If there is conflict, that can help, but if the conflict turns into circular reasoning, nothing can be achieved. There must be a hierchy within the group so that collaborative negotiation does not "block communication and prohibit the development of consensus" (Trimbur 471).
Works Cited and Consulted--(excuse the form)
Bruffee, Kenneth. Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind" (1984) from Victor Villaneuva's Crosstalk in Comp Theory (2003).
Meyers, Greg. Reality, Consensus, and Reform in the Rhetoric of Composition Teaching (1986) from Villanueva's Crosstalk... (2003).
Trimbur, John. Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning (1989) from Crosstalk... (2003)
1 comment:
Have you thought about using Lunsford, also? I know there is at least one really good article by her in Villanueva.
And, you don't need it, but...
GOOD LUCK!
Post a Comment