Kenneth Bruffee has written an intriguing essay on the nature, history, practice, and necessity of collaborative education in the world in which we depend on conversation and social learning to come to agreements on important issues we try to be knowledgeable about and also to come to new understandings based on individually revolutionary ideas on the traditional. He points out that collaborative education is not a new concept and it has been the largely natural process of developing good judgment, genuine interaction with peers, thought-provoking interior reflection, and consequential meaningful discussion throughout history. He explains that we need to work together in order to know the source of "normal discourse" and contribute more appropriately to it, whether in approval or contradiction to the established ideas being communicated. In theory, if we understand the nature of the world we are speaking about, we can thus speak better about its constituents. I like that he establishes that writing can only develop from the existence of social interchange and dialogue; otherwise I think writing begins to exclude itself from the social context, its very audience, and becomes inaccessible and alienated. Since knowledge is a "social artifact" and is neither concrete nor singular in truth, it is necessary for a continual conversation to occur in order to further knowledge acquisition in a generative fashion. Bruffee argues that we must constantly be open to negotiation in order to keep this conversation growing, maintaining established ideas of the past while challenging them with innovative ones. We must reacculturate ourselves and our values to stay engaged in the conversation we currently take part in, rather than simply solidify our standing in traditional rights and wrongs.
It is nice sometimes to remember why I came to college to begin with: to put myself into the conversations I wanted to partake in, to immerse myself in my interests and concerns with others doing the same, quite unlike my peers in high school. This is primarily why I often tell my father how thankful I am that he let me come to I.C. rather than take the free route of New Jersey's scholars program. I felt distant from the conversation I had been in all my life back home and I knew the kids who went to the community and local colleges; they did not talk about the subjects I wanted to explore and only seemed to continue those of high school. I felt Ithaca was where I could blossom and develop into the person I dreamed of being; but I also knew that I couldn't do it alone, like I had been trying. Ithaca was the model of collaboration for me at that crucial decision-making time, and I think I chose well, however unconsciously it may have been.
What I love about I.C. is that collaborative education seems to often be the goal, even if it's not always the actual case in execution. I am motivated by their goal to interact more often with my peers and more meaningfully; I've noticed that many of the ones I push to join me actually have, and they keep bringing others into the action. Now, I do this with sincerity because I value my education dearly, and it is frustrating when I learn that students do not share this respect of the learning process and look at school as an obligation, rather than an incredible chance for exploration -- the awful reality of education in high school for me. I'd like to see more collaboration in certain areas, but in the Writing department at least I feel the level of collaborative work I've experienced in workshops, peer revision, meetings, etc. has been just as I'd hoped for. Education feels real and tangible to me in this manner, and I think other students in less collaborative-geared schools, programs, or classes might feel differently about their place in the conversation if they were more aware that they were in it (which I think is what collaborative work ultimately results in-- do you?).
No comments:
Post a Comment