Collaborative Learning (Trimbur)

Although I typically enjoy working on group projects, I do not like writing group papers. In the past, I have had numerous negative experiences when it comes to writing papers with others. However, I have to admit that I also had one very productive group paper writing experience. Additionally, I know that I will likely work with some of my colleagues on conference presentations or journal articles in the future. 

Now, as a teacher, I have to decide how collaborative learning fits into my philosophy. Should I let my own perspective impact the way I teach or should I acknowledge that collaborative learning is an important part of education? John Trimbur's article "Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning" discusses some of the different ways collaborative learning is viewed. 

Throughout the article, Trimbur focuses on consensus. The more negative view of consensus is that “the use of consensus in collaborative learning is an inherently dangerous and potentially totalitarian practice that stifles individual voice and creativity, suppresses differences, and enforces conformity” (Trimbur 733). However, Trimbus states “Consensus, I will argue, can be a powerful instrument for students to generate differences, to identify the systems of authority that organize these differences, and to transform the relations of power that determine who may speak and what comes as a meaningful statement” (734).

Although some of my fellow grad students require a collaborative paper for English 120, I have only assigned a final group project. However, I think a collaborative paper is an important aspect to consider adding to my course. For example, I think the rhetorical analysis assignment is one that is most commonly assigned to partners. Instead of asking two students to write one paper on an article though, I put them in “article groups” where three or four students with the same article have short brainstorming sessions with each other. Also, this semester I will be holding group conferences before the rhetorical analysis is due to discuss ideas. One of the main things I’m worried about is the possibility of reinforcing a single idea as the “right” one, which is that same view of the critics of consensus. How should we, as teachers, encourage open discussions without obviously favoring certain ideas over others?

Also, do we even need to require group papers as part of collaborative learning in the classroom? I ask students to work in groups for their final video commentary projects, but that isn’t a written work. It is a transformed version of their written commentaries.  Moving forward, I would like to consider Trimbur’s version of consensus: “Through a collective investigation of differences, students can begin to imagine ways to change the relations of production and to base the conversation not on consensus but on reciprocity and the mutual recognition of the participants and their differences” (745).