Short Essay #1: Collaborative Learning

Towards the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, there has been much thought, discussion, and study on composition theory and the way writing is taught. The reason for this age of rhetorical dissection stems from a general inability of students at the high school and introductory college level to produce written expression of mechanically and logically sound matter. During this time of scholarly inquiry, many have found that composition itself has been undergoing a change in identity from that of an act which has previously been viewed as something cognitive in process to ideas that composition is both self and socially constructed, requiring new approaches in the way that writing is instructed.

One such teaching method, debated hotly over the last thirty years, focuses on collaboration in the classroom and that writing, and learning in general, is collaborative in nature and should be taught with this in mind. I’ll admit that studying collaborative learning and writing theories, (scholarly efforts processed by analytical study of one another’s work therefore being collaborative in a sense), required from a class which is exclusively taught in a collaborative fashion, is a bit like sitting in a barber shop chair and looking past my face into the infinite bend of reflection. I think there is an end in sight, however, regarding the debate on writing and learning by consensus in that the very act of accomplishing both must be done through compromise and balance.

Kenneth Bruffee, in “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind”, states that, “We converse; we internalize conversation as thought; and then by writing, we re-immerse conversation in its external, social medium” (551). Bruffee goes onto to state that, “Writing always has its roots deep in the acquired ability to carry on the social symbolic exchange we call conversation” (551). By this line of reasoning, it is logical to assume that students assigned to group work will reach consensus and the eventual completion of a task through external communication and its effect on internal thought. In “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning”, John Trimbur cites critical views of group work as being “Potentially totalitarian in practice and oppressive to individual voice and creativity” (733). While admitting that “We cannot realistically expect that collaborative learning will lead students spontaneously to transcend the limits of American culture” (734), Trimbur denies skeptical claims of group conformity stating that, “Their effort to save the individual from the group is based on an unhelpful and unnecessary polarization of the individual and society” (734). In support of Bruffee, Trimbur acknowledges that “If anything, it is through the social interaction of shared activity that individuals realize their own power to take control of their situation by collaborating with others” (735). But to contrast the same idea, Trimbur explains that the act of collaboration which enables consensus is of less importance than the process of identifying differences within the group and whether or not the group is able to work together despite dissensus. Trimbur, I think, offers a mute point here considering that a collaborative effort towards anything will inevitably produce internal strife and compromise must take place in order to reach consensus.
One critic of collaborative learning, Rafael Heller, expresses in “Questionable Categories and the Case for Collaborative Writing” that he has “Grown tired of arguing about the social construction of knowledge” and that “We can assume a certain familiarity with the idea” (305). It is this construction of knowledge, however, that is the backbone of collaborative learning according to its proponents. Rebecca Howard Moore asserts in “Collaborative Pedagogy”, “When teachers are no longer dispensing knowledge in lectures but are guiding students in the collaborative process of discovering and constructing of knowledge, students are empowered” (57). Bruffee echos Howard’s thoughts, stating that “To learn is to work collaboratively to establish and maintain knowledge among a community of knowledgeable peers” (555); and “Collaborative learning models how knowledge is generated, how it changes and grows” (556). Howard mentions the empowering of students as one of the results of collaborative learning; I think this an important concept when arguing in favor of this methodology. When given the chance to critique someone else’s work, I believe it opens up an avenue to become more conscious of one’s own thought processes and writing, leading to an assertiveness that may have been previously elusive. John Trimbur also notes the importance of empowerment: “Consensus does not necessarily violate the individual but instead can enable individuals to empower each other through social activity” (735).

Again Heller challenges the reformers: “My question isn’t whether writing instructors ought to stress collaboration as opposed to some other mode of authorship. Rather, I wonder what difference this makes” (306). Heller goes on to say, “It’s self-defeating, I think, for teachers to pursue the categorical transformation of students’ modes of writing” (315). After sifting through the assigned reading thus far this semester, I have found no evidence that any purveyor of collaborative composition is opposing other modes of pedagogy, but are instead suggesting that it become a method of learning added to preexisting curriculum. According to Bruffee, fostering aid to struggling students is largely where collaborative learning can make a difference. Yes there are tutoring and counseling programs in place, but “these programs fail because undergraduates refuse to use them” (547).

Rebecca Moore Howard puts together a detailed methodology for collaborative pedagogy, but she does not advocate the abolition of traditional hierarchical teaching. While utilizing group brainstorming and peer review, Howard only assigns one group writing project as opposed to four individual assignments. I do not believe that it is the intention of educators of composition to transform students’ modes of writing. There is, however, a consciousness that the pedagogical method of composition as taught over the last hundred years has somehow cheated students at the high school and college level. Since questions have been raised as to how knowledge is constructed and what allows the mind to put thought on paper, it seems quite necessary that professors use different teaching approaches in unison to create a balanced pedagogy.