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.
Showing posts with label collaborative learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collaborative learning. Show all posts
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Week 5 Readings
Bruffee
Brufee’s views on collaborative learning brought up some interesting points for me. I can definitely see how collaborative learning has a place in the modern classroom. I recently attended a Project Management seminar in which we talked about different generations and their particular styles of working. Gen Y, the students currently in college and entering the work force, were identified as needing the most emotional validation, but also as the best team workers. It makes sense that a generation with a heavy reliance on their peers and the ability to work well in a team or group would also be able to learn well in a collaborative setting. I can’t say it is my ideal situation in many cases, but it does make sense for some people, and the current crop of students appears to thrive in just such an environment.
In response to Brufee’s assertion that collaborative learning can be “the blind leading the blind,” I would agree with that if the students were left with absolutely no supervision. However, a professor could still have a highly collaborative class while still providing enough guidance to keep students on task and on topic. In a collaborative environment, the professor becomes a guide instead of an instructor.
Hartwell
I found the study Hartwell discussed on p. 578 particularly interesting. I would expect to see different errors in the writing of non-native speakers of English based on their native language and its similarity to English. Hartwell points out that this is not the case. It is very interesting that mastery of spoken English is so different than mastery of written English. I suppose it must be because when speaking we tend to ignore many of the conventions that we are used to putting in writing (or think we ought to put in writing). So should we try to speak more correctly, or relax our standards for writing? I’m not sure. Most people’s conversational English, while not necessarily correct, flows easily and is readily understood (not so in some cases though!). In fact, if they spoke in an entirely grammatically correct manner, it would likely seem stilted. I’m not willing to give up on standards for written grammar yet, but this did give me some food for thought.
Berlin
I was surprised by Berlin’s description of cognitive psychology and its claim that it is possible for rhetoric to be objective/neutral. In my view, rhetoric always has a persuasive element, so it would be nearly impossible for it to be objective. Most of this article seemed like common sense to me – of course we must teach students to look for the ideological elements of rhetoric – ideology is inherently a part of rhetoric.
Brufee’s views on collaborative learning brought up some interesting points for me. I can definitely see how collaborative learning has a place in the modern classroom. I recently attended a Project Management seminar in which we talked about different generations and their particular styles of working. Gen Y, the students currently in college and entering the work force, were identified as needing the most emotional validation, but also as the best team workers. It makes sense that a generation with a heavy reliance on their peers and the ability to work well in a team or group would also be able to learn well in a collaborative setting. I can’t say it is my ideal situation in many cases, but it does make sense for some people, and the current crop of students appears to thrive in just such an environment.
In response to Brufee’s assertion that collaborative learning can be “the blind leading the blind,” I would agree with that if the students were left with absolutely no supervision. However, a professor could still have a highly collaborative class while still providing enough guidance to keep students on task and on topic. In a collaborative environment, the professor becomes a guide instead of an instructor.
Hartwell
I found the study Hartwell discussed on p. 578 particularly interesting. I would expect to see different errors in the writing of non-native speakers of English based on their native language and its similarity to English. Hartwell points out that this is not the case. It is very interesting that mastery of spoken English is so different than mastery of written English. I suppose it must be because when speaking we tend to ignore many of the conventions that we are used to putting in writing (or think we ought to put in writing). So should we try to speak more correctly, or relax our standards for writing? I’m not sure. Most people’s conversational English, while not necessarily correct, flows easily and is readily understood (not so in some cases though!). In fact, if they spoke in an entirely grammatically correct manner, it would likely seem stilted. I’m not willing to give up on standards for written grammar yet, but this did give me some food for thought.
Berlin
I was surprised by Berlin’s description of cognitive psychology and its claim that it is possible for rhetoric to be objective/neutral. In my view, rhetoric always has a persuasive element, so it would be nearly impossible for it to be objective. Most of this article seemed like common sense to me – of course we must teach students to look for the ideological elements of rhetoric – ideology is inherently a part of rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)