Bruffee argues that the concept of learning is a social rather than individual process and that learning is not assimilating information but rather a social and collaborative effort to create and maintain knowledge. Peer tutoring and in-class group work was used to engage freshman college students who refused traditional help, which led to the discovery that these forms of collaboration did not change what students learned, but how they learned. Oakeshott argues that what distinguishes human beings is our ability to converse both within ourselves and among us. Internal conversation is reflective thought and is causally related to social conversation. Our ability to think is inherently related to our social conversations and has several limiting
…show more content…
Rorty argues that normal discourse’s “purpose is to justify belief to the satisfaction of other people within the author’s community or knowledgeable peers” (404). Kuhn argues that knowledge must be a social artifact, one that is established by communities of knowledgeable peers and can be challenged and negotiated collaboratively with one another. Bruffee argues that since knowledge is a social artifact, then creativity is too, but unlike knowledge it is an abnormal discourse. Rorty says abnormal discourse “is what happens when someone joins in the discourse who is ignorant of the conventions governing that discourse or sets them aside” (409). Abnormal discourse is knowledge-generating discourse and through collaborative learning shows us the limiting nature of normal discourse and challenges the authority of unproductive knowledge. Teachers derive authority by the nearness to one of these secular versions of God: intimacy with the greatest minds, being in direct touch with the objective world, but mainly by being certified representatives of knowledge communities that students wish to join. Collaborative learning provides a social context where students can practice conversation and thinking …show more content…
Relying on Bruffee’s perspective of collaborative learning, they emphasize digital resources as “a way of engaging students more deeply with the text” and providing “a social context in which students can experience and practice the kinds of conversation valued by college teachers” (37). Referring to Elbow, Burke, LeFevre, Lunsford, and Ede, and many other social constructivist and collaborative learning theorists, Kennedy and Howard suggest that effective collaborative writing relies on several key factors: group dynamics, dialogic exchanges, a medium (physical or digital) of interaction, inclusion of minority views and opinions, and shared tasks and deliverables. The goal of collaborative activities arranged according to these factors is to establish “group cohesion,” generate “creative conflict,” and promote group ownership and accountability (42). Digital collaboration offers access to tools that can mediate these goals, facilitate collaborative writing, and is becoming a valuable resource for students to converge and collaborate. According to Flower, teachers should view dissent as a positive occurrence so that from conflict can emerge “a joint inquiry into thorny problems, opening up live options that let us construct a language of possibility and a more complicated ground for action“ (42). From the internet’s potential for reader interaction,
Rorty argues that normal discourse’s “purpose is to justify belief to the satisfaction of other people within the author’s community or knowledgeable peers” (404). Kuhn argues that knowledge must be a social artifact, one that is established by communities of knowledgeable peers and can be challenged and negotiated collaboratively with one another. Bruffee argues that since knowledge is a social artifact, then creativity is too, but unlike knowledge it is an abnormal discourse. Rorty says abnormal discourse “is what happens when someone joins in the discourse who is ignorant of the conventions governing that discourse or sets them aside” (409). Abnormal discourse is knowledge-generating discourse and through collaborative learning shows us the limiting nature of normal discourse and challenges the authority of unproductive knowledge. Teachers derive authority by the nearness to one of these secular versions of God: intimacy with the greatest minds, being in direct touch with the objective world, but mainly by being certified representatives of knowledge communities that students wish to join. Collaborative learning provides a social context where students can practice conversation and thinking …show more content…
Relying on Bruffee’s perspective of collaborative learning, they emphasize digital resources as “a way of engaging students more deeply with the text” and providing “a social context in which students can experience and practice the kinds of conversation valued by college teachers” (37). Referring to Elbow, Burke, LeFevre, Lunsford, and Ede, and many other social constructivist and collaborative learning theorists, Kennedy and Howard suggest that effective collaborative writing relies on several key factors: group dynamics, dialogic exchanges, a medium (physical or digital) of interaction, inclusion of minority views and opinions, and shared tasks and deliverables. The goal of collaborative activities arranged according to these factors is to establish “group cohesion,” generate “creative conflict,” and promote group ownership and accountability (42). Digital collaboration offers access to tools that can mediate these goals, facilitate collaborative writing, and is becoming a valuable resource for students to converge and collaborate. According to Flower, teachers should view dissent as a positive occurrence so that from conflict can emerge “a joint inquiry into thorny problems, opening up live options that let us construct a language of possibility and a more complicated ground for action“ (42). From the internet’s potential for reader interaction,