What students do when working collaboratively on their writing is not write or edit, or least of all, read proof. What they do is converse. They talk about the subject and about the assignment. ... Most of all they converse about and as a part of writing. (Bruffee, p. 553)
Writing is both a process and a product. I have to admit that it struck me when I read "They talk about the subject..." You mean, they're not just talking about the assignment requirements? They might actually engage with the subject? What a great idea!
More important, and germaine to Bruffee's point, is that their discussion is meaning-making. This creativity that we so prize is socially generated because it springs from knowledge that is socially generated. Yes, there are certainly lone auteurs who get all their inputs from books and write in a bubble, insulated from the world. But the rest of us have to talk with one another, work through ideas, get clarification, and work through drafts. And why should this surprise us? Most TCers, copywriters, and journalists write in community. So why shouldn't students write in community as well? (I'd like to note here the irony. I never liked group projects in school.)
Abnormal Discourse
The discussion of "abnormal discourse" in Bruffee really perked up my ears as well. Does creation of new knowledge really require "abnormal discourse?" In a previous class with Dr. Kemp, we discussed the concept of "disturbed knowledge." In order to publish anything useful and anything someone will want to read, we have to introduce disturbed knowledge, or "abnormal discourse."
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteI want to say first that I too hated group work, and I also am newly excited by the possibility of assigning group work. And frankly I think there's something to be explored here. As I see it there are a few possiblities. First, folks like you and I could just be strange (I certainly am, I'll admit). Or, (2) it could be that most everyone hates group work, but the enjoyment is not related to the work's value (it's like brussel sprouts: good for you even if you hate them). Next, (3) it could be that the group assignments we faced were simply bad assignments. Or (4) it could be that group work is particularly valuable only for some of the folks in the group. Or maybe (5) you just can't please all the people all the time.
Thinking back, I find myself leaning most toward 2 and 5. As an undergrad, I rarely found group work useful because I felt most others in the group either didn't care or didn't know enough to be useful, and so I had the choice of either doing most of the work myself or trying not to care about the final product. But at the same time, I did learn a lot by trying to explain material to other members (there's nothing so educational as teaching), and I often realized other people knew far more than me (or that I knew far less than I thought). So even though it kind of sucked (took up more time to get less done, demanded team skills that often had little to do with the subject), it was good for me, and probably good for other group members as well.
As a final note I'd add that in discussion-based classes I've have great success with doing group work very early on (week 1 or 2) because it creates a sort of community where more people are willing to speak.
In any case, I think this dislike of group work is something worth further examination.