Thursday, October 21, 2010
Group Work
Although Trimbur's article made some interesting points, overall I felt that he took a simple idea and presented it in a complicated manner. It seems that his article can be summarized by two questions: Is collaborative learning, or group work, successful? And is it wrong for students to come to a consensus? There are obvious benefits to working in groups in a class. For example, it forces students to organize, work together and "expand the conversation" (733). I really liked how Trimbur referred to consensus as creating "a common language in the classroom" (743). However, there is a "fear of conformity" in coming to a consensus (734). Although this loss of individualism is evident in group work, it is irrelevant. The idea of students working in a group is not for them to present their own voice, but rather to hear other voices and let it shape and develop their own. There are other outlets for students to present solely their own voice, such as journals, blogs and papers. However, there is a risk of a consensus not truly being a consensus. For example, it may be coming from three people out of a four person group if that forth person is too shy to assert themselves. I found it interesting that collaborative learning did not really exist in universities until after open admission programs came into existence (736). I wonder if this fact implies that group work exists to aid the lowest-common denominator, a student that comes from a very weak educational background. Perhaps group work is there not to further develop these students' pre-existing ideas, but to allow them to take ideas from the students that understand the assignment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hannah--Nice thinking here about Trimbur. True, in retrospect, what he says now seems more obvious and clear. But, what about collaboration in today's environments? Was holding class via MOO a form of assimilation? It's clear that students will need to collaborate in the workplace with fellow employees. Are they prepared to do that well enough, generally? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts concerning the rise of collaborative learning after the creation of open admissions policies are interesting. It makes sense to me that it might have been a way to incorporate less educated, less prepared students into the discussion - allowing people to enter the conversation with less pressure and, perhaps, to learn more in a mini-attempt to catch them up. I'm still not sure I'm a fan of collaborative learning.
ReplyDeleteOne of our recent authors (maybe Trimbur?) suggested something similar to your idea of group work reaching the lowest-common-denominator. I think the statement was that collaborative learning makes the conversation accessible to those who would not be able to access it otherwise. I find this very interesting and wonder if an injustice is being done for those who can access the conversation and would benefit from higher-level discussion. In a way it might, but at the same time I'm a true believer that individuals benefit from teaching ideas to others. There's something complicated about putting beliefs into words and I think that verbalizing one's ideas helps that person better understand the concept and better develop those ideas into something more interesting. For these reasons, I think collaborative learning is a good thing when it comes to discussion of ideas. I'm still not convinced though, that collaborative learning has as much of an effect on writing as on critical thinking. But I guess that's a matter of what the instructor privileges.
ReplyDelete