Brooke
I thought this was one of the most engaging articles we have been assigned so far. Brooke’s study really interested me. His interpretation of student activities that, on the surface, appear disruptive, was very eye-opening. It is very interesting that the students were so often engaged in something that was associated with the class, instead of ignoring it completely and engaging in some totally unrelated activity. It seems these students are interested in the subject, although they do not always buy the method or specific activity. If this is really the way students function, it seems that collaborative learning is indeed a good classroom solution, and that teachers should provide guidance but let students learn in the way that is best for them.
Trimbur
Tribur’s idea that using the consensus of collaborative learning to identify gaps and, in fact, foster dissensus was interesting. I’m not sure I think it would really work this way, particularly in light of Brooke’s study in which students were discussing what they could do to get by or give the teacher what he/she wanted to create less work for themselves. However, it does seem to be an idea that deserves more study. The last paragraph confused me some – it seems that Tribur does not think that collaborative learning will work as a long-term educational model – did I read that wrong? Since he seems to favor many aspects of collaborative learning, I found this an odd view to express.
Harris
I like Harris’s idea that students should be encouraged toward an awareness of the discourses they use, instead of trying to force everyone into one “correct” discourse. Awareness would probably go a long way toward helping people with “correct” English, in my view. Many people are unaware of their particular dialect, but if they are aware they are more likely to be able to adapt their language usage based on the situations in which they find themselves, and the people with whom they are interacting.
I see your point Trimbur. Many of these readings leave the novice theorist in a pickle. Most describe what teaching methods won't work, or even which methodology will; however, I want to see more detail-oriented game plans. For example, collaborative learning environments have, or can have, many sub-sets and varying nuances, but often it is treated collectively as a single theory. I am also a detailed person that likes to see between the lines. In general, its wonderful for authors to say an idea will work, but if funding won't facilitate the scenario at hand then the conversation is merely academic. Great analyses!
ReplyDeleteGood question about Trimbur, Rebecca. I’ll attempt an answer that may help or may just confuse the issue even more.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think he’s attempting to do at the end of article is to avoid the closure that leads back to his original critique of Rorty and Bruffee. Trimbur argues that abnormal discourse still involves working within a specific, hierarchical discourse community, which Rorty and Bruffee seem to deem an acceptable place to be. What Trimbur does is push that one step further to say that instructors should ask their students to evaluate the consensus to which they have agreed to situate that end into an even larger framework. They need to understand that even accomplishing an assignment still forces a hierarchical situation of which they need to be aware—and this awareness doesn’t necessarily remove the hierarchy but instead allows them to see yet another way that power can shift in conversation. Trimbur’s last paragraph underscores the postmodern tendency to view each speech act as situational. This creates a great tension between literary analyses’ attempts to create universal meaning and the kairotic nature of rhetoric. Any universal meaning (or canonical placement of literature) becomes secondary to the moments of consensus and dissensus in conversation.
Rebecca, I too very much appreciated Brooke, and it reiterated something about which I need to remind myself virtually every class I teach: the less I talk the better I teach.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a universal law (thankfully -- I really love to talk!), but in general I find I need to talk less let the students learn more. Aside from believing that students can't learn from anyone but me, the desire to talk also stems a bit from the power differential. Instructors have power, and when students defy this in subtle ways it can come across as a challenge, and like any mammal I tend to see challenges as win/lose games. But of course they're not. Aside from the very human need to transcend assigned roles, I think what's happening in many of the cases discussed by Brooke is that students are contextualizing information, which is the core of learning, and so when instructors (and I've occasionaly been this guy) squash the little conversations they are really undermining their own instruction. Incidentally, I think this idea is a powerful support for collaborative learning. In addition to the notion of socially-constructed knowledge, groups just offer students a place to safely set aside the student role for a moment, and most importantly an environment in which they can practice their knowledge in context.