Bruffee and Communities of Knowledge
I know it’s a little late, and I know I’m not technically on the roster for this week’s posting duties (just posting early is all), but I felt it was important that we have a little back-and-forth about the Bruffee article. So here’s a few of my thoughts:
I felt that one of the most important things that Bruffee was arguing is that we need to teach our students how to communicate in such a way that is as close as possible to the way we would like them to write. I’m gonna step aside here and say that I don’t think that has anything to do with style or grammar or forcing Standard English down people’s throats. I think it has to do a whole lot more with the far more challenging task of getting students to express ideas––to maybe even get to the point of coming to those ideas in the first place. It takes a lot to get from the point of reading a text, to understanding it, to then even being able to analyze it––especially if you haven’t had much practice. (Here I hope you see the connection to Taylor’s post and the Sumner reading.)
I think that another important thing this article expressed is that knowledge is a social artifact. It can only be created by a consensus within a community. Importantly, a community is based off of shared relationships with other human beings. The only way to begin and continue relationships is through communication. True, we might disagree with one another, but in the end we are often able to come to some kind of consensus that allows us to be able to coexist (that socially justified belief Bruffee talks about). It’s easier and easier to talk to people and to express your ideas when you know those people and when you feel comfortable to share your opinions with them. Probably why it’s important to have a good classroom community.
While I was reading all of this, I was thinking through what it would be like to create communities of discourse and a strong sense of collaborative learning in my own classes. I was wondering what it would be like to group my students up into smaller teams that could discuss and collaborate on their projects. In some ways, it would be like peer review groups, but they would be working together throughout the whole process of writing (and researching if 104). They would still be doing their own individual projects, but it would give students the chance to get more feedback and perspectives than if they were just working alone. Groups would be reformed after every project so that they could get more perspectives and to help maintain a good overall classroom community.
I was also thinking that it could take the workload off of me as the instructor. I think feedback is an essential step during the writing process, but trying to give feedback to 50 students takes a lot of time (something that I'm particularly struggling with right now). Plus, I don’t want to give the impression that I, or any one person, is the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong in how research and composition should be conducted or what the finished result should even look like. I was even curious what it would be like for students to not just give feedback, but to also assess each other in terms of whether they have fulfilled the goals of each assignment (a pass/fail situation).
I am curious what you guys think about this. Is it feasible? Ethical? Would it make me seem like a lazy instructor to “pawn the work off” on students? What are the ways that you create ‘discourse communities’ in your own classes?
Cassia,
ReplyDeleteI think you’re posing a lot of interesting inquiries in this post and I will try my best (with my quarantine brain) to do them justice.
Earlier in your post you speak to the concept of classroom communities and knowledge as a social artifact. You state, “It can only be created by a consensus within a community. Importantly, a community is based off of shared relationships with other human beings. The only way to begin and continue relationships is through communication.” I think when you point to knowledge being a social artifact you are absolutely assenting to what Bruffee is suggesting and I cannot say that I disagree with you here.
However, when you say “community is based off of shared relationships with other human beings,” I want to challenge you. Forgive me if I sound too “out of the box” (cue ’98 children’s television show) here— in relation to community as well as conversation, where does literature fit? I think we need to expand our boundaries for what creates an effective community because, though Bruffee suggests these collaborative communities are built/ knowledge is built through conversing with others, I can’t help but think about my “conversations” with Freire, Giroux, Gramsci, Dewey, Burdick, Hess, McAvoy, etc. The content that is published that I digest serves to incite an internal monologue in my brain just the same—OH, even inanimate objects have a way of “responding,” I suppose. Okay, I’m getting off track.
This is all to say, I think some clarification is needed…. Not to say Jimmy who sits in the corner of the classroom doesn’t have anything to offer me as I’m sure he does. I just wanted to iterate that collaboration in FYC is often less…hmm… fruitful. Haha
All this to say, I think the reason for development and advancement of knowledge is often not collaboratively working in FYC… but perhaps this is just my experience that has hardened me. “Jimmy” has not shown interest in participating in the dialogue in years past. I think Bruffee has an idealistic vision of collaborative learning that is incredibly difficult to replicate, even on the best days.
To transition to a resting place that I hope makes sense: I think rather than excessively focusing on collaborative working (to a degree, yes of course this is great!), we should first deconstruct what it means to use a text as a resource… really, genuinely pursue a text as a resource and one we can communicate with. A starting place perhaps!
Great post!
-Kelli
Thank you for being a contending voice Kelli, I like that.
DeleteI think a point of clarification is in order. Is not literature created by humans? Are these author’s not expressing their own thoughts and ideas and selves in their writing? I see this as a form of communication. I have been trying to get my students to think about how their sources are in a conversation with one another, and importantly, how they as the writer ARE having a conversation with their sources as well (actually here meaning the author of those sources––the human being who is in the source and who created it).
As an anthropologist myself, I wholeheartedly think that even inanimate objects “speak” to us. Not to sound like I’ve gone more off the deep end and am now speaking to my dirty socks (and expecting them to answer be back––at least). What I am saying is that no matter what the means is, so long as it helps us to form connections with other beings, then it’s part of that relationship that creates community. As someone who also loves to do environmental history I see no reason to say that we can’t even be in community with the environment and the organisms that live in it.
I think what it really comes down to is that “communities of KNOWLEDGE” phrase Bruffee uses. That’s the important part of all this. So long as you are in some fashion of dialogue with someone (or something) else with the intention of broadening or testing or sharing your knowledge, then you are in a “community of knowledge.” Now I’m thinking of Muir. He even gained a lot of knowledge simply by being in nature, but it was then his desire to share that knowledge with other human beings that really mattered whether they listened to him in the end or not (I’m thinking of the Hetch Hetchy dam). And I could go down a rabbit hole there, but I will spare you.
Lastly, I think you make a good point that Jimmy in the back might not even care to be part of that community of knowledge or be part of the conversation. Doing as you said and teaching how to deconstruct a text, how to get into a conversation with it in the first place is a good first step. But I might even argue that even if Jimmy in the back is not speaking, maybe even not listening, then who’s still to say that he is out of the conversation, out of the community? Even that hostility and resistance is a form of communication, is it not? I’m not certain what I think about this entirely, but here’s a thought: What if Jimmy’s resistance shows us how our community of knowledge is viewed on the fringes or from the outside or––more importantly––by those who are forced into it? Should we even make people join our community of knowledge who don’t want to be a part of it? (I will simply––and tentatively––say, try everything once.)
Hi, Cassia,
ReplyDeleteI've been struggling with the idea of how to make class more collaborative as well, particularly in peer feedback; I set aside points and three days this semester for peer review, but suffice to say, they were not enthused, and often showed up with little to nothing written. But also, I feel like one of the problem that I've run into this semester is in particular my students don't know how to read assignment sheets, so they're certainly not confident enough to give their peers feedback. Now, this might be fixed with an extensive lesson on how to give feedback, etc., but actually, I think I found something might work a little better (at least for me). Will and I were in a writing center session working on my grading contract syllabi for this class - which I think I'm going to try next semester - and instead of peer feedback, we came up with peer revision to solve the issues I'm having. Basically, the class after a major project was due, we would go over their next project, but we'd also spend time on revision with a partner. They would be like little mini writing center sessions, going through my feedback and offer their partner solutions or tips, fixing the issues together. This means that a) they would never come empty handed on that day b) they would get practice revising and working with a partner c) students might feel more comfortable suggesting ways to help or change something in their partner's paper if I've already identified it as a problem. I don't know if it will work, but I'd hopeful to try it next semester.
Mika,
DeleteI also had a lot of trouble with students showing up with nothing for peer review or giving little feedback even when I had a whole sheet of prompting questions for them to work through. I love the idea of having peer review sessions afterwards and based on feedback. My only questions: 1) If these sessions are based on your feedback, would that mean you would have to have all of the papers graded immediately after they turned them in? That seems like a strict deadline to keep yourself set to, especially if you’re dealing with two classes and 50 students. But I could also see how delaying it could interrupt the unit you’re currently in and seem like backtracking… 2) And would resubmitting revised drafts be required then? I could see this potentially working well with a portfolio setup. Perhaps dedicating a period of classes leading up to when their final portfolio is due to the revision sessions? I definitely like this idea and am already thinking if some version could work for my classes!
-Jessie
Hi Cassia,
ReplyDeleteYou have a lot of great thoughts here. I think it is good to push our students to succeed, but i can see where this could easily be seen or become passing the responsibility off to them. I think there has to be a sort of balance between leading our students and letting them have space to explore and learn as adults. I think overall, it is an experimentation to try and find a good balance of your own in terms of how you want to work with your students.
Abbie
Cassia,
ReplyDeleteYou pulled out some good ideas in your blog. Getting feedback from peers is in all way significant and helpful. In addition, giving feedback on other paper helps them to employ critical thinking. Most importantly, they get the opportunity to revise their paper with constructive feedback. But it's hard to get them on board. Students hardly show interest and enthusiasm in participating in peer-review class or discussion ( though I have some energetic and active students too). When I first talked about peer-review in class, most of the responses were like- "I hate peer-reviewing, this is the worst part in writing..bla...bla...bla...". Though they know the positive side of peer-review, discusssion board activities, they still are not very much willing to do so. So, it's really hard to motivate them intrinsically. However it was better in classrooms, but really getting difficult for me to do online. Though I made a complete instruction set for them for my recent peer-review class, gave them extra credits, they hardly showed any interest. Most of their feedback was 1-2 lines and that barely made any sense. I kept 2 days for peer-reviewing and I made them work after tons of personal emails.
However, to me collaboration in class community is important. To get them engaged in class and encourage employing critical thinking among them , these types of activities have great importance. Now I'm focusing on my in-class activities planning and trying to develop some new ideas that can better serve next semester to engage my students in class.