Bruffee is a major advocate of collaborative learning and believes this process contributes to significant benefits in the attainment (or invention) of knowledge. In addition, Bruffee supports the use of collaboration in writing centers, the composition classroom, and in writing in other disciplines as well. Bruffee’s collaborative theory is grounded on social constructivist epistemology which asserts that knowledge and even reality do not exist until they are socially constructed. In some ways Bruffee’s ideas seem to coincide with Graff’s well-known decree to “teach the conflicts” in that students are learning to situate themselves in a larger academic discourse. However, Bruffee’s ideas are not purely based on argumentation; instead, he sees the collaborative process as a time of creating knowledge.
I agree with Bruffee in that collaborative learning has many benefits: it is a way to attain new points of view, it challenges students to develop their own position, and it engages students in the dialogic academic setting. My major contention with Bruffee is his assertion that learning can only take place socially. While I concede that all knowledge is ascertained through some sort of interaction between ideas, I argue that this can be done by an individual. A student can go to the library on their own, pick up a book, and engage with the author of that text. Though many people may benefit from having a group discussion about the contents of the book, why is it impossible for the individual to develop his own opinions and to attain knowledge without the collaborative process?
I would like to learn more about the specific methods that Bruffee advocates for the collaborative process in terms of composition. This collaborative process seems to include, though is not limited to, the peer review process. But how else does he socialize the learning process? Furthermore, in a model like this, how does the instructor ensure that groups are engaging in higher order thinking rather than conversing on trivial points on a text and making superficial corrections to writing?
20.3.09
1.3.09
Hugh Burns
Hugh Burns’s visit to class last week was a real pleasure. Burns has an engaging and approachable personality. His talk focused on many of the foundational ideas of rhetoric like the seven liberal arts of Ancient Greece which include the trivium (logic, rhetoric, and grammar) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music). The quadrivium is particularly interesting because of the assertion that students must master the seemingly disparate fields of mathematics, science, and music before grappling with philosophy. Though these ideas are literally thousands of years old, they tie in well with the emphasis on an interdisciplinary approach to higher education that Burns supports. Burns is an advocate of Writing Across the Curriculum and also considers the role of technology in areas other then English.
Burns also spoke on the four Language Arts which are speaking, writing, listening, and reading. The first two are heuristic which involves solving problems under conditions of uncertainty, while the latter two are concerned with hermeneutics or interpretation. The most interesting part of Burns’s talk was when he spoke on his area of expertise: technology. He provided an interesting perspective on programming software that applies algorithms to language. A three pronged approach to artificial intelligence was also explained by Burns, which includes knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, and search. Finally, I found his approach to writing interesting. Burns stated that he writes about four or five pages daily without completing any prior research. He said that he “tries to get the light to come on in here [motioning to his heart]” before validating his ideas through research. This ensures a certain authenticity of ideas.
Burns also spoke on Wayne Booth, a literary critic from the University of Chicago. His first and most influential book Rhetoric of Fiction defends the role of the author, specifically an “implied author” or speaker who posits some statement of truth. This idea goes against the theories of New Criticism which attempt to view a text in isolation, apart from contextual information. Other works include A Rhetoric of Irony, Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Ascent, The craft of Research, and Rhetoric of Rhetoric.
Burns also spoke on the four Language Arts which are speaking, writing, listening, and reading. The first two are heuristic which involves solving problems under conditions of uncertainty, while the latter two are concerned with hermeneutics or interpretation. The most interesting part of Burns’s talk was when he spoke on his area of expertise: technology. He provided an interesting perspective on programming software that applies algorithms to language. A three pronged approach to artificial intelligence was also explained by Burns, which includes knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, and search. Finally, I found his approach to writing interesting. Burns stated that he writes about four or five pages daily without completing any prior research. He said that he “tries to get the light to come on in here [motioning to his heart]” before validating his ideas through research. This ensures a certain authenticity of ideas.
Burns also spoke on Wayne Booth, a literary critic from the University of Chicago. His first and most influential book Rhetoric of Fiction defends the role of the author, specifically an “implied author” or speaker who posits some statement of truth. This idea goes against the theories of New Criticism which attempt to view a text in isolation, apart from contextual information. Other works include A Rhetoric of Irony, Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Ascent, The craft of Research, and Rhetoric of Rhetoric.
23.2.09
Brammer and Brees
The main argument of the article by Brammer and Brees is that peer review is a valuable part of the writing process if done in the right way. It seems that many composition instructors have accepted that peer review should be a part of the writing process, yet they fail to thoroughly instruct students in how to successfully participate in it. Teachers must increase time preparing students, use multiple ways of presenting the strategies of the process (lecturing, handouts, and modeling), and demonstrate to students that they themselves believe in the value of peer review (81). This helps students to go deeper than simply making proofreading corrections.
The basis for this article was a survey conducted at a predominantly “white, middle-class, suburban” university in which the researchers questioned both faculty and students on their experiences with and attitudes toward peer review. The results were not terribly surprising: most students and faculty believe that there is some value in the process. It is more interesting to look at these statistics next to the results from the L2 survey. Most L2 students also believe in the importance of peer review; however, they experience more anxiety and reluctance to participate because of the inherent power relationships involved in the process. Though students who are still struggling to master the English language may have very valid, even profound, thoughts, they have far less confidence in expressing them because of the communication barrier.
One of the ideas suggested by Brammer and Rees is that in order to have an effective collaborative peer review experience, a rapport must be developed among group members. “Students need to create a sense of shared community in order to develop dialogues of trust and to build confidence in their classroom peers” (81). Because writing is a very personal process and sharing one’s writing means making one’s self vulnerable, creating a positive, nonjudgmental environment is extremely important in ensuring that students can be confident about their writing as well as the peer review process.
The basis for this article was a survey conducted at a predominantly “white, middle-class, suburban” university in which the researchers questioned both faculty and students on their experiences with and attitudes toward peer review. The results were not terribly surprising: most students and faculty believe that there is some value in the process. It is more interesting to look at these statistics next to the results from the L2 survey. Most L2 students also believe in the importance of peer review; however, they experience more anxiety and reluctance to participate because of the inherent power relationships involved in the process. Though students who are still struggling to master the English language may have very valid, even profound, thoughts, they have far less confidence in expressing them because of the communication barrier.
One of the ideas suggested by Brammer and Rees is that in order to have an effective collaborative peer review experience, a rapport must be developed among group members. “Students need to create a sense of shared community in order to develop dialogues of trust and to build confidence in their classroom peers” (81). Because writing is a very personal process and sharing one’s writing means making one’s self vulnerable, creating a positive, nonjudgmental environment is extremely important in ensuring that students can be confident about their writing as well as the peer review process.
Kratzke
Kratzke frames his article around the concept of “recopying to revise;” however, his main argument is that teachers must train students to remain (or become) independent of computers. Instructors cannot be Luddites; technology should be used as a tool provided that it assists and does not interfere with students’ cognitive and composition processes. The notion of drafting was interesting for me because I’m young enough that I always remember being able to save documents, whether on a thumb drive or floppy disk. I’ve never had to rewrite multiple drafts, but imagining this leads me to the conjecture that, although painstaking and time-consuming, drafting in the old sense must have done much more to improve student writing than the current revision process. As Kratzke claims “much student writing lacks a certain human quality” (authors emphasis) (15). The major issue is that students are skipping the entire cognitive process: spell check and grammar check make most of the corrections for students, and the corrections the students do make on their own are superficial. If real, in-depth revisioning is not completed, then students are unwittingly tweaking the same first draft over and over.
One issue brought up by Kratzke is the notion that student achievement in composition is not increasing. For scores of years instructors have lamented over their students’ declining writing skills. If these instructors are never satisfied can it possibly mean that good writing is simply not easy to do? I personally believe that great writing takes incredible amounts of time, effort, and practice (and possibly a little natural talent). All other writers, whether poor, mediocre, or good, can always improve, but I’m not sure that it is possible to have a massive quantity of great writers.
Kratzke quotes Jane Healy pondering the Ongian possibility that “the act of reading itself may be on the way to obsolescence” (13). NPR had a report this morning of a university in Mississippi that has made the transition to all computer-based textbooks. The benefits and disadvantages will continue to be argued, but the fact remains that physical texts are losing ground in many ways. I agree with Kratzke that the “transactional” nature seems to be missing when you read a text on the computer; however, I’m sure that new modes of cognition will develop with technology. The important thing is that this metacognitive process does not become obsolete.
One issue brought up by Kratzke is the notion that student achievement in composition is not increasing. For scores of years instructors have lamented over their students’ declining writing skills. If these instructors are never satisfied can it possibly mean that good writing is simply not easy to do? I personally believe that great writing takes incredible amounts of time, effort, and practice (and possibly a little natural talent). All other writers, whether poor, mediocre, or good, can always improve, but I’m not sure that it is possible to have a massive quantity of great writers.
Kratzke quotes Jane Healy pondering the Ongian possibility that “the act of reading itself may be on the way to obsolescence” (13). NPR had a report this morning of a university in Mississippi that has made the transition to all computer-based textbooks. The benefits and disadvantages will continue to be argued, but the fact remains that physical texts are losing ground in many ways. I agree with Kratzke that the “transactional” nature seems to be missing when you read a text on the computer; however, I’m sure that new modes of cognition will develop with technology. The important thing is that this metacognitive process does not become obsolete.
Tasker and Holt-Underwood
This article summarized the major arguments that have been developing over the last forty years in feminist literary criticism and theory. The article really doesn’t posit any ground-breaking new ideas; instead, it reminds the reader of the long and difficult struggle that women have faced in achieving an equal voice in society. Feminist historiography in composition and rhetoric reveals the silencing of female voices throughout the literary tradition. Criticism of the early aspects of this approach is that “feminist methods are highly interpretive, difficult to identify, and often only implied” (57). Over the last couple of decades, approaches to and opinions of feminism in the literary field have grown tremendously and have become much more diversified.
One assertion that I found particularly interesting was brought up by Patricia A. Sullivan. Tasker and Holt-Underwood explain that “Sullivan argues that women’s cognitive functions are different than men’s” (58). I would be interested to hear an explanation of exactly what these differences are. The debate between Biesecker and Campbell was also particularly interesting. The two argue about historical methodology and both claim the other is further silencing women’s voices. I agree with Campbell that not all women (or individuals) have “equal rhetorical ability;” there are innumerable factors that determine one’s abilities, and no two individuals are exactly alike. One of the things that is made the clearest in this article is the notion of pluralism in feminist methodology. Every individual has her own experiences, methods, and agendas creating endlessly diverse perspectives. That “pluralism thrives” (67), is a notion that is central not only to feminist research methodologies, but to all of theory and criticism in general.
One assertion that I found particularly interesting was brought up by Patricia A. Sullivan. Tasker and Holt-Underwood explain that “Sullivan argues that women’s cognitive functions are different than men’s” (58). I would be interested to hear an explanation of exactly what these differences are. The debate between Biesecker and Campbell was also particularly interesting. The two argue about historical methodology and both claim the other is further silencing women’s voices. I agree with Campbell that not all women (or individuals) have “equal rhetorical ability;” there are innumerable factors that determine one’s abilities, and no two individuals are exactly alike. One of the things that is made the clearest in this article is the notion of pluralism in feminist methodology. Every individual has her own experiences, methods, and agendas creating endlessly diverse perspectives. That “pluralism thrives” (67), is a notion that is central not only to feminist research methodologies, but to all of theory and criticism in general.
Bartholomae Presentation
Like Bizzell, Bartholomae emphasizes the importance of preparing students for academic discourse. Students must find their place within culture and must be self-aware. Bartholomae seems to keep it pretty simple: students must learn their place within cultural contexts, the analysis of academic texts must be at the center of the thought process, and engaging in academic discourse is the ultimate goal for these students.
The debate between Elbow and Bartholomae makes public a discourse on the appropriate approaches to composition and language. Comparing ideas of social versus individual contexts of writing, and trust versus skepticism of language are interesting disputes. I agree with Bartholomae that language should be distrusted because it is constantly being manipulated in order to exert power, sell products, and persuade audiences. However, what may be more interesting are the similarities between Elbow and Bartholomae. Both see the importance of approaching writing as a process and carrying out a great deal of writing. Students also need to develop self-confidence in their critical thinking and writing processes; this empowers students to further develop their voice.
Hearing how Bartholomae’s ideas worked in relation to Elbow’s was important and very beneficial. Emily’s presentation helped to clarify the argument between these two scholars and to see how this debate has contributed to larger ideas of composition in the academic setting.
The debate between Elbow and Bartholomae makes public a discourse on the appropriate approaches to composition and language. Comparing ideas of social versus individual contexts of writing, and trust versus skepticism of language are interesting disputes. I agree with Bartholomae that language should be distrusted because it is constantly being manipulated in order to exert power, sell products, and persuade audiences. However, what may be more interesting are the similarities between Elbow and Bartholomae. Both see the importance of approaching writing as a process and carrying out a great deal of writing. Students also need to develop self-confidence in their critical thinking and writing processes; this empowers students to further develop their voice.
Hearing how Bartholomae’s ideas worked in relation to Elbow’s was important and very beneficial. Emily’s presentation helped to clarify the argument between these two scholars and to see how this debate has contributed to larger ideas of composition in the academic setting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)