In COLLABORATIVE LEARNING, Kenneth Bruffee advocates a far-reaching change in the relations we assume between college and university professors and their students, between the learned and the learning. He argues that the nature and source of the authority of college and university professors is the central issue in college and university education in our time, and that if college and university professors continue to teach exclusively in the stand-up-and-tell-’em wa… More >>
#1 by Phillip G Stephens on July 2, 2010 - 5:51 pm
Although I don’t agree with the nonfoundationalist point of view, there is much to ponder and learn from Bruffee. If one delves into WHY they don’t agree with his thesis, they’ll probably come away from the exercise with a far better understanding about their position vis-a-vis education-perhaps they’ll even develop their own philosophy of education.
However, believers beware: if you agree with the concepts outlined by Bruffee and the nonfoundationalist camp, check the other side of the coin (cognitive, essentialist, traditionalist) before committing.
Rating: 4 / 5
#2 by Sachet (Dr. Fontaine Moore) on July 2, 2010 - 6:40 pm
I read this book for a doctoral course on collaborative learning. I argued with it throughout the course and in the process, came around to Bruffee’s way of thinking–that learning is indeed a social process.
Shortly after this course, I had a major life change that refocused my program away from corporate learning and toward brain-based learning. From all the cognitive psychology and neuroscience courses and reading, the consensus is that external and environmental factors strongly influence the function of the brain–to the cellular level and very possibly the intercellular, genetic level.
Keep in mind that Bruffee is an English professor and as such, is not trained as much in a quantitative empirical as an analytical qualitative tradition. Therefore, criticism based on anectdotal vs. empirical evidence doesn’t hold much weight. He has thoroughly analyzed and logically argued his thesis, in accordance with rhetorical traditions. The introductory chapters that explain how he came to adopt the views he did are very telling. Recall, that he didn’t work in isolation, but in conjunction with other scholars/academicians who applied scholarly traditions to their research.
Educators, in my opinion, would do well to learn more about the brain and how it functions related to learning. Yes, we can essentially brainwash students to comply with existing wisdom or we can encourage them to think critically in the course of exposure to the “wisdom of the ages” for the purpose of applying relevant knowledge to their own lives.
Almost intuitively, Bruffee echos many lessons learned from empirical study of the brain through careful observation. In other words, there is more than one way to peel a potato and Brufee convincingly argues for one way–a collaborative one in which the boundaries of knowledge groups are negotiated–to do it.
The subtraction of a star was due to the lack of “smoothness” in which he states his case. He does, at times, come across as rather preachy and pedantic, rather than warmly convincing. Therefore, I subtracted a “style” point but not for substance or validity of his arguments.
Rating: 4 / 5
#3 by Anonymous on July 2, 2010 - 6:40 pm
A faculty symposium (Jan 2001) was given Ken Bruffee’s book to read as the text for the symposium’s subject of “interactivity” in distance education.
I’m afraid the book failed to convince. The moderator, Dr. Steve Eskow, of the Pangaea Network — and the one who chose the text for the symposium — admitted that the work needed “severe editing”.
Others criticised its evangelical tone and referred to the “blessed St. Ken.” Many were put off by the book’s tone: Ken starts in his preface by referring to students as incapable of interacting with each other as human beings, and then goes on to put down his readers in the first sentence of the first chapter — he was achieving wisdom while the rest of us were going through puberty, thereby neatly alluding to our sexual inadequacy in the face of his own whatever. Whatever.
Bruffee has a distinct agenda – he wants to restructure higher education and “reacculturate” students. Some wondered at the political undercurrent of the work, but I reckon the thrust is religious rather than political. St. Ken has Seen the Light, and all those who flock to him will be Saved from Darkness.
Never mind that the book’s argument is entirely anecdotal; if one truly believes in nonfoundational social constructivism then the lack of hard facts doesn’t matter: Ken is Right! Everyone else in Education is Wrong (and heading straight to Hell).
Hey Ho.
Rating: 1 / 5