Collaborative Learning: The Praxis of Dispelling Authoritative Illusions

[Imoutgoodbye]

David Zimmerman

Sallie Butler

English 111.p10

30 November 2010

Collaborative Learning: The Praxis of Dispelling Authoritative Illusions

Walking into English 111 for the first time, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I assumed it would be like any other class I had taken during my academic career. I expected it to be a reflection of my high school days, mirroring the mind-numbing lectures and given assignments of writing and research. I figured we’d read a few pieces of literature, regurgitate a summary, and maybe dig into the meanings of the writing a little. I assumed I was ready and I’d spend most of the time working alone. Well, I was surprised! English 111 wasn’t just about the material in the course. It most certainly was not just about reading and writing. English 111 was my first introduction to a discourse community and the collaborative learning that a discourse community entails. No longer was learning about just I and me. The previous disdain I had for working within a group slowly began to dissolve as did my desires to solely sit, listen, write, and get feedback from the teacher. However, my scope on learning has vastly increased thanks to Sallie Butler, my classmates, and the English 111 course format. Why? Perhaps because one of the greatest skills anyone could ever learn is not working in groups, but to listen to their peers and respond. By taking in other frames of reference and critically thinking about another person’s perspectives one can then critically reflect upon their own frame of reference and defend or adjust their ideas. This is why collaborative learning is an integral part of education.

Collaborative learning allows us to do far more than we can as individuals. By opening ourselves to another person’s frame of reference and agreeing to work with them, whether it is just one other person or a group of people, we dispel the illusion of authority. The late Paulo Freire, a teacher/philosopher exiled from Brazil who went on to teach at Harvard University and held many other prestigious teaching/counseling positions around the world, touches upon the idea of authority as being an obstacle in education. While speaking of the banking concept of education and in turn how this suppresses learning, Friere writes about a pedagogy of teaching that is revolutionary in how the teacher should relate to the student. For the teacher to be successful in helping the student attain a higher level of knowledge Friere implores that “his efforts must be imbued with a profound trust in people and their creative power. To achieve this, they must be partners of the students in their relations with them”(243). The point Freire is getting at is that by relinquishing their authority, a teacher can foster collaborative learning amongst not just himself and the students, but as to how the students interact with each other. When the students no longer look solely to the teacher for their authority on the subject in question they can begin to work amongst themselves as autonomous collaborative learners and in the same way with the teacher who has brought himself to the level of being their peer.

However, the idea of the teacher being a peer to the student is an illusion in itself because the teacher is far more educated on the subject than the students, but allowing the students to become more active in the learning process will hopefully stimulate the student to take more control in their learning. Without everyone being willing to engage in the process, collaborative learning does not work well. Everyone has something to contribute that would help someone else, but just as someone cannot be made to learn, no one can be made to participate. Kenneth Bruffee, a professor of English and director of the Scholars Program and the Honors Academy at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, specializes in collaborative learning and has written several books and articles on it. In one article he talks about how willingness and authority intertwine necessarily through collaborative learning. It’s a spirit of responsibility that Bruffee refers to when he states, “Willingness to grant authority, willingness to take on and exercise authority, and a context of friendliness and good grace are the three ingredients essential to successful autonomous collaboration”(405). This explains why classrooms are often difficult to get into a collaborating mood. Unless you know the people in the class well, why would you want to grant them authority in your learning? Why would you want to take on authority for their learning? Essentially it comes down to realizing that just as with most physical activities you can do more as a collective than you can by yourself.

Speaking of not being able to do everything by yourself, collaborative learning also helps us understand how we as people relate to the world. The world is an ever changing place and because it’s so large there’s far too much for any one person to understand it as anyone else would. Once again, frames of reference come into play. The culture that each person grows up in is rarely the same as the next person as it varies by time, location, gender, race, and many other aspects. How each person sees the world and the culture they exist in is unique. Jack Mezirow is emeritus professor of adult education at Teachers College, Columbia University talks about frames of reference and transformative learning in education as being understood best through discourse to validate understanding because of how learning is a social process (9-10). For learners to begin to try new frames of reference to begin the transformation of their own ideals and education it’s necessary for there to be praxis. It’s with this idea of discourse community when Mezirow speaks on facilitating learning that “learners need practice in recognizing frames of reference and using their imaginations to redefine problems from a different perspective”(10). When students collaborate with others they open themselves up to the frames of reference of another person that they previously could imagine, but not from the true perspective of the one who has experienced it. It is through this second hand knowledge that a learner can continue transformative learning beyond what they could do by themselves and they can continue to transform the world through this reflection and action as in Freire’s praxis.

Unfortunately, there is no single constant catalyst for triggering transformative learning in an individual. The exposure to other frames of reference through collaborative learning does increase the chances as it helps the learner understand how they can relate to the world. Patricia Cranton, a professor of adult education at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, Canada, takes great interest in researching and writing about transformative learning and authenticity in teaching. In one particular article on transformative learning she questions what exactly it is in teaching that could begin the process of transformation. There are many ways to attempt to initiate learner transformation, but ultimately it’s within the student’s mind that the he must consciously make the choice to begin exploring newer points of view with true interest and passion. The learner must rise to the challenge on their own and it’s with this in mind that Cranton muses, “I think it is the environment of challenge that underlies teaching for transformation”(66). It is the challenge of the class material and the challenge of the frame of reference held by peers that will begin the process of the learner to begin questioning all that is in and around him. If the learner is to understand the world he must begin to change as the world is always changing. Collaborative learning greatly facilitates this as Mezirow points out, “the learner may also have to be helped to transform his or her frame of reference to fully understand the experience” (10).

In understanding the world through collaborative learning the learner can also use it as a way of knowledge creation through discourse. In discourse knowledge there is a power aspect presented through language, whether it be written or spoken. Ira Shor is a professor at the City University of New York, where he teaches composition and rhetoric. He is also one of the leading exponents of critical pedagogy. In his book, Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change, Shor talks about the Elsasser-Irvine experiment that took place in a college-based writing class in the Virgin Islands. The students in the class had failed the writing course using just standard English when Elsasser and Irvine began an experiment involving helping the locals use their spoken language of Creole mixed with standard English to develop their own written langauge. By working collaboratively through discourse these students were able to create their own written language. Shor reports that Elsasser and Irvine brought in Afro-Caribbean linguist Vincent Cooper to help the students analyze the situation. Shor concludes, “Cooper’s presentation of Creole as a rule-governed language gave it a stature and legitimacy that enlarged the student’s perceptions”(49). Through collaboration the students were able to assume a power that had been denied to them by a language that was not their own. No longer were they oppressed by the idioms of a language that they were being forced to assimilate to. They had changed their frames of reference and dispelled the illusion of authority through praxis. As large of a scale as knowledge creation is on in the previous example, it’s also something that can be quite simple and sometimes misleading. Without proper guidance, learners can also completely become distracted by other ideas. In collaboration to generate knowledge the learner has to be careful to differentiate between generative knowledge and academic knowledge. Generative knowledge is based on emotions and the learners experience while academic knowledge moves the understanding towards “some standard of critical analysis”(Alford, 116). Knowledge and language are both forms of power brought to fruition through collaborative learning.

It is with all these things in mind that I have come to the realization that for a learner to become fully whole, he cannot do it alone. Actively engaging in collaborative learning will bring the learner that much closer to being an autonomous and critical being who is in sync with the problems of the world and can contribute to exploring the ways to identify and solve these problems. The skills learned from collaboration will provide both a great depth and width of knowledge and it shall not be superficial. It’s an important tool to not only making the learner a better person, but a more valuable member of society.

 

Works Cited

Alford, Barry. “Freirean Voices, Student Choices.” Pedagogy. Provided by Instructor: 115-118.

Bruffee, Kenneth. “The Art of Collaborative Learning: Making the Most of Knowledgeable Peers.” Composing Knowledge: Readings for College Writers. Ed. Norgaard. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2007: 398-407.

Cranton, Patricia. “Teaching for Transformation.” Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide or Educators of Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Freire, Paulo. “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education.” Composing Knowledge: Readings for College Writers. Ed. Norgaard. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2007: 239-251.

Mezirow, Jack. “Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice.” Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Shor, Ira . Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press , 1992. Print.

[Imoutgoodbye]

This is my final essay, my synthesis essay, from English 111. I hope you've taken the time to read through this and derive some meaning from it. Maybe my academic writing will make more sense than my babbling I'm prone to on the forums. I swear, I have intelligence. You can also find a copy of this on the Facebook page.

[Pali]

I've actually got a few minor grammatical fixes to suggest if you're at all interested in them. I've also got a few questions for you, primarily centering around your use of the word praxis, that I'll hopefully remember to toss up once I get back from the bar. It's a good case (at least, as good a case as could be made in an essay this length) for a less authoritarian and more conversational and inclusive style of teaching, but in my case, you're somewhat preaching to the choir on that - the value of back-and-forth idea tossing and discussion is why I end up in internet arguments.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, practiced, embodied, or realized. "Praxis" may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas.

I use the word liberally, at best. My main understanding of the word is from texts written by Paulo Freire and it was from there I divined a rough meaning in my own mind. The above definition I pulled from Wikipedia (my professors shudder and ban the use of wikipedia as a source).

But, you may give me as much feedback as you wish and I will look forward to seeing it tomorrow.

[Pali]

Oh, I know the definition of the word (looked it up to double-check ), my questions are primarily towards how you use it. For clarity, I'll give dictionary.com's definitions: 1. practice, as distinguished from theory; application or use, as of knowledge or skills. 2. convention, habit, or custom. 3. a set of examples for practice. (Also, I'd love to point your professors towards the studies finding Wikipedia to be nearly as accurate as Britannica - in most instances it's actually a damned fine source of information.)

For learners to begin to try new frames of reference to begin the transformation of their own ideals and education it’s necessary for there to be praxis.

Right here, for instance, the word does not quite seem to fit (this is also your first use of the word outside of the title, and for such an uncommonly used word, I personally would have included at least a minimal definition after using it to avoid contextual confusion - but on the other hand, this is scholarly writing rather than writing for the general public, so I don't at all consider you obliged to do the same). I think I understand the concept you were intending to communicate, but grammatically speaking, it doesn't quite make sense to me. Using your definition, the above statement can be changed to "For learners to begin to try new frames of reference to begin the transformation of their own ideals and education it’s necessary for there to be a process by which the lesson is practiced/realized." While this is certainly true, it is also almost tautological ("for someone to learn something they need to practice it" seems an accurate simplification), and I don't think it serves your case very well. In context you seem to be referring to Freire's ideas on the subject, but that only makes it more tautological given your previous description of Freire's ideas; the sentence could be even more translated to "For learners to begin to try new frames of reference [beyond the teacher's] to begin the transformation of their own ideals and education it’s necessary for there to be interaction with other frames of reference beyond the teacher's" - this the very case you are making with the paper, but it isn't actually an argument in favor of that case... it is merely a restatement of that case but with different wording. If I'm misunderstanding you horribly here, please, send some clarity my way.

It is through this second hand knowledge that a learner can continue transformative learning beyond what they could do by themselves and they can continue to transform the world through this reflection and action as in Freire’s praxis.

Here, as you are referring to Freire's praxis rather than just "praxis", the term makes a great deal more sense to me - but the problem here is that your paper doesn't state that Freire ever actually put any of his ideas into practice. Your source material might, but your paper does not - and a purely theoretical idea, by your definition, does not meet the definitional requirements of a praxis (again, by your words, the process by which an idea is enacted, and Freire's ideas referenced in your paper are purely theoretical - you mention Mezirow's and Bruffee's statements along similar lines as well, but again, you don't mention any actual applications of the concept, so "praxis" does not seem the correct word to use).

From my reading, it seems to me that to actually speak of the effectiveness of the ideas of Freire, Mezirow and Bruffee, you'd need to be referencing situations where they actually did suffice as praxis - but your paper doesn't seem to include any of them. The only direct example you give is the Elsasser-Irvine situation, and there are a number of factors that don't seem to be filtered out there if the point is to compare Freire's concept of collaborative learning with more authoritative styles of teaching - the biggest one from my perspective being the language gap. It is not at all surprising to me that a group of people could more easily learn to use a system of writing that closely resembles their spoken tongue than they could learn to use a system of writing that does NOT closely resemble their spoken tongue... but the greater factor here seems to be the language used for writing rather than the teaching style of that writing. Without a control to see how well an authoritarian method of teaching a Creole/English patios writing system works compared to a collaborative learning method of teaching that same writing system works, there's no actual evidence that collaborative learning is superior. Your paper states that "through collaboration the students were able to assume a power that had been denied to them by a language that was not their own", but could it not have simply been that they were empowered by actually using a language they understood natively? Without having read the source material, my understanding of this situation is extremely limited, but it's the only actual situation you use in support of the concept that collaborative learning is superior to authoritative learning... and given the uncontrolled variables involved (at least, your paper does not state any greater controls), I don't find it a very convincing one.

EDIT: I am rather intoxicated right now, so if I overlooked something, please forgive me. May have more to say later. The grammatical corrections only exist in a couple of places... "Jack Mezirow is emeritus professor of adult education at Teachers College, Columbia University talks about frames of reference..." would I think be better as "Jack Mezirow, emeritus professor of adult education at Teachers College, Columbia University, talks about frames of reference..." or "Jack Mezirow is emeritus professor of adult education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and he talks about frames of reference..." Like I said, very minor alterations among those lines... the above was the only one that really jumped out at me. Will likely re-read later and point out one or two more places that I noticed in my first read-through and don't care to find again now.

[Imoutgoodbye]

I never actually get into what the praxis is, but as it relates to Freire, it's a method called problem-posing. It's up to the teacher to guide students with realized lessons, not by giving them answers, but presenting them with problems they may encounter in the world. This usually leads to students gleaning more problems, sometimes not foreseen by the teacher, thus giving students a more hands-on approach and the opportunity to create their own praxis or "practiced method". I see how it appears tautological and that is entirely my fault for not pointing that out. Even a scholarly reader could miss that.

You're also right that there is no comparing and contrasting between collaboration and an authoritative style of teaching. It's the suggestion that transformative learning take place in the mind of the student, outside of the classroom, and away from the teacher that nearly voids the necessity. Comparing certainly would have made a better case, but the purpose of this particular paper was to either present something balanced (I would have had to give authoritarian style teaching its due and credit) or present my ideas on a given topic with scholarly sources to back up my thoughts on the topic. In essence, it was a synthesis of my ideas with the ideas of my sources to back up my thoughts. Not entirely an analysis, though I see where you got an analysis with my last source. I admit I was reaching there and felt I had nearly exhausted a topic built around one word: collaboration.

Also, given that I used words like "implore" with my sources to give them more impact, I tried to keep my own personal feelings from the paper, but note where I used plural pronouns like "we" and "us". I should have cleaned up this paper better.

I will go over this more later. Awoke early due to some toothachiness and downed a few ibuprofen...waiting for them to kick in so I can go back to bed.

EDIT: Ultimately, I think English 111 was to measure student writing ability and if they could work with sources to back up their own ideas. Expository Writing and Reasearch is English 222 and I'll be taking that next semester. I know who I want proofreading my papers. *big grin*

EDIT2: I meant paper, not papers. English 222 gives me the entire semester to write one paper, 24 pages, double spaced, on a topic of my choice. I'd like to narrow it down, but I"ve been thinking about it all summer and I want to take a look at the legal/ethical issues facing schools today.

[Pali]

I never actually get into what the praxis is' date=' but as it relates to Freire, it's a method called problem-posing. It's up to the teacher to guide students with realized lessons, not by giving them answers, but presenting them with problems they may encounter in the world. This usually leads to students gleaning more problems, sometimes not foreseen by the teacher, thus giving students a more hands-on approach. I see how it appears tautological and that is entirely my fault for not pointing that out. Even a scholarly reader could miss that.[/quote']

Well, the confusion I had was that the term praxis, by definition, refers to an application of an idea - and if Freire did more than just hypothesize about the concept you're talking about, your paper doesn't mention it. Therefore, in the context of the paper, discussing Freire's praxis doesn't really make sense, since the paper never actually mentions his ideas being put into practice. As I've generally understood it, giving sources for your information has the secondary purpose of allowing the reader access to more detailed information on the topic - the primary purpose is to support the claim that you're not just making **** up. Any concepts discussed in your paper should, I think, be fairly self-contained and explained within the paper, else they don't come across as entirely coherent. You don't want people reading your paper to have to be taking time looking things up because they don't know what you're talking about without doing so - though the level to which you should accommodate the ignorance of the audience depends on your target audience.

You're also right that there is no comparing and contrasting between collaboration and an authoritative style of teaching. It's the suggestion that transformative learning take place in the mind of the student, outside of the classroom, and away from the teacher that nearly voids the necessity. Comparing certainly would have made a better case, but the purpose of this particular paper was to either present something balanced (I would have had to give authoritarian style teaching its due and credit) or present my ideas on a given topic with scholarly sources to back up my thoughts on the topic. In essence, it was a synthesis of my ideas with the ideas of my sources to back up my thoughts. Not entirely an analysis, though I see where you got an analysis with my last source. I admit I was reaching there and felt I had nearly exhausted a topic built around one word: collaboration.

You seem to view presenting the arguments for both as meaning you cannot come down solidly in favor of either... would your professor have had problems with an analysis that fairly examined both but found one style superior? I honestly would not be surprised if the answer was yes here, as this kind of attitude is annoyingly pervasive and manifests in many ways (the common fallacy that if there are two opposing ideas then the truth must be in the middle, for instance, annoys the crap out of me - and if you think you don't see it all the time, just look at politics ).

Also, given that I used words like "implore" with my sources to give them more impact, I tried to keep my own personal feelings from the paper, but note where I used plural pronouns like "we" and "us". I should have cleaned up this paper better.

Personal feelings I'd definitely agree should not be in the paper - but personal thoughts I don't see any reason to not include.

I will go over this more later. Awoke early due to some toothachiness and downed a few ibuprofen...waiting for them to kick in so I can go back to bed.

Always fun going over scholarly works when nobody involved is at their best, eh?

EDIT: 24 pages?! You may need to give me a few days for that one. Also, honestly, I never took much in the way of English classes... I tend to have decent grammar skills and a broad vocabulary because I read a lot, but chances are that a lot of things an English professor would look for in a paper are things I would not - and criticisms I'd have are quite possibly things they wouldn't have a problem with. If you can find another English major who is amiable to the task, I submit they'd be better suited than I am.

[Mali]

Ditch the first paragraph. In it's place put in a brief introduction and thesis statement. What format are you writing in? If APA, the citations are incorrect. In general it is best to remove first person references from academic writing. Otherwise, good job!

[Imoutgoodbye]

MLA. I don't use APA, hope I never have to. The first paragraph we were instructed to use a personal narrative.

This paper was already graded last year, as an A. But I agree there could be improvements.

[Mali]

It looks good, man. Have you considered writing something for publication in a professional journal? That is the heart of academic writing.

[Demiterracotta]

Could we have a TLDR?

Looks good, and I agree with Mali, perhaps you should consider writing up something for a Journal.

[Pali]

Could we have a TLDR?

I swear, every time I see someone say that somewhere online as a serious objection, my respect for them drops a notch (you're obviously joking, so this doesn't apply to you ). People already don't read nearly enough.

[Mindflayer]

Top Level Domain Registry

[inscribed]

I felt it needed more action bits. Where was the climax? I am also confused as to who the hero of the story was.

[Pali]

Top Level Domain Registry

Suck it, squiddie.

[Mindflayer]

Suck it' date=' squiddie. [/quote']

It's Illithid, damn you! ;)

[Demiterracotta]

It's Illithid' date=' damn you! ;)[/quote']

I prefer the term quadrapus.