COLLABORATIVE PEDAGOGY : SOCIALHERMENEUTI CSIN THECLASSRO OM
by
Janice LynnOber gAdam s,B.Sc.
A thesis submitt ed tothe SchoolofGra dua teSt u d ies In pa rtial fulfillment ofthe requ ire me nts
forthedegr eeof Maste r ofEduca tion
Depa rtmentofCur riculuman d Instruction Faculty of Education Memori al University of New foundland
Decemb er 1993 St. John's,Newfoundl and
. +.
NationalUbrsry Of""",,"~~Brft:h
"'
~GUrio_ .... ~nalionale~ectiondesa~el
da~service$ bibliog~
".~-
='.J.0I'U0'01
1llE AlflHOR HASGRANTED AN IRREVOCABLENON·EXCLUSIVE UCENCEAILOWlNGTImNATIONAL LIBRARYOFCANADATO REPRODUCE, LOAN,DISTRIBUTEOR SELL COPIESOFIlISIHERTIlESISBY ANYMEANSANDIN ANYFORMOR FORMAT,
MAKlNonns
1llESIS AVAILABLE TO INTERESTED PERSONS.1llEAunlOR RErAINS OWNERSHIP OFTIlECOPYRIGHTIN mSIHER lHESIS.NElTIIER1HElHESlSNOR SUBSTANTIALEXTRACTSFROMIT MAY BEPRINTEDOR OlllERWlSE REPRODUCEDWlIlIOUTillS/HER PERMISSION.
Canada
L'AUTEUR A ACCORDEUNOLICENCE IRREVOCABLEETNON EXCLUSIVE PERMEITANTA LA BmUOn::EQUE NATIONALEOUCANADADE REPRODUIRE,PRETER.D1STRlBUER OUVENDRE DESCOPIESDESA TIlESEDEQUELQUEMANIERE ET SOUSQUELQUE FORMEQUECE SOIT POURMEITREDES EXEMPLAIRES
na
CETTE
nrs ss
A LA DISPOSITIONDES PERSONNE INTERESSEES.L'AUTEUR CONSERVELAPROPRIETE DU DROITD'AUTEUR QUIPROTEGE SA lllESE. NILA mESENIDES I!XTRAITS SUBSTANTIELSDECELLE· CINODOIVENTETRElMPRIMI!SOU AUTREllENTREPRODUITS SANSSON AtrrQRISATION,
Abstract
Theterm collaboration isinfrequentusebothin Ihebusiness and educationsectors. Theidea often impliedby this termisthattwo or morepeople are workingtogetheron asingle product.In thisthesisI explore amore comp rehensive view ofcollaboration.one thatflowsfroma learningpraxis knownas collaborative pedagogy.
Thisthesis is thedocumentationof collaborative pedagogy innlocalsite.
In mydiscu ssion ,Iarguethatcollaborative pedagogyisbased ona philosoph y whichvie ws languageasasocially conte xtualphenomenonand knowledge generation as social hermeneutics.
Iprovidea historicalandculturalco ntextforcollabo rative pedagogyby comparingaphilosophywhichopposescollaborati ve assumption10a philosophy whichgro unds collaborativepedagogy.I then discussthelearning cnviromn cnts whichemanatefromthesedifferingphilosophies .
Next,Idescribe auniversitycourse whichincorporated collaborative pedagogy .I follow thisdescriptionwith a discus sionofissu espertinent to classroom practice.
Finally,I discussthe challenges andrewards involved intheshift to collaborative pedagogyforeducational practice.
Acknowledgements
Iexten d my appreciation tothose whocollaboratedwithme onthis journey. Iamindebted toDr. Fra nkWolfeforgiving me couragetoleavethe dock. to Dr.Phyllis Artissfor providing the sailingvessel.and toDr.ClarDoyle for hisnavigationalexpertise.Alo ving thankyoutoKi, myfirst-mate, andto my paucm crew, AllisonandTaylor.
Tableof Conten ts
ChapterOne .
AHistoricalContextforCollaborative Pedagogy ChapterTwo... .. . AContemporaryContext forCollaborativePedagogy
Chap terThree .
Reflections on Classroom Practices
ChapterFour ..
TheRisks and Rewards ofCollaborative Pedagogy
References Cited .
AppendixA-CourseOutline Appendix B-ProcessLog AppendixC•Questionnaire
• 1
. 25
...86
...91 ...98
ChapterOne
A Historical Context for Colta bora tlve Pedagogy
Thepurpose of thischapter is togivea historicalcontext for collaborative pedagogy enroute to exploring itsuse ina specificclassroomsetting. Many voices, eachwith a distinct sonority,haveparticipatedinandareparticipating in the developmentofcollaborativepedagogy. AsI listento eachvoice,I donothearjust variationsoncurrent themes in philosophy,epistemology,or methodology. What I do heararenewthemes informed bytheories whichstandin direct contrast to thoseby whichsociety has structured its educational institutions.I hear "critiques that challenge reason,consciousness,knowledge, meaning,communication,freedom,andother values asserted by theEnlightenmentand developed inmodem sciences.humanities, and publiclife" (Phelps,1988,p.5).In this chapter Iwillchallengeeducational practices rooted in rationalisticthoughtby amplifyingthe voices ofpeoplein the latter partof this centurywho directly and indirectlyhave opened the way for a radicalchange in the wny we viewandeducateourselves.
First,Iwillcontrast a rationalistic viewof language witha social hermeneutical view.Second, Iwillcompare theepistemologies informedby these two views.Finally, Iwillcontrast educational environmentswhich Iseeemanatingfrom thesetwo views, which arethetraditionalle aming environmentand thoseincorporatingacollaborative pedagogy.
CHALLENGING RATIONALISTICVIEWS
or
LANGUAGEManypeople who have espousedcollaborativepedagogy havedone so withoutanyreference to(heterm collaborative.But,it isnot without significance thai the peoplewho generated thepublicdiscourse specifically
concerned withcollaborative practices in NorthAmericawere educators interested inlanguage,composition, and rhetoric.In 1984,KennethBruffcc stated that
there aresomesigns these days thatcollaborative le<lrningisof incrcusill£
interesttoEnglishteachers,," Compositionteachers seemtobe exploringthe conceptactively....Teachers of literaturehave also begun to talkabout collaborative learning,althoughnot alwaysbythat nnme (p.635).
Bruffeenotedthatthisinterestdid notoriginatefrom researchbut froma"pressing educationalneed"which begansurfacing in the19705.Increasingly, siudcmswith abilities that should have assured themofsuccess incollegewere havingdifflculty coping with theiracademicstudies, And far morethancoursecontent or methodsof literary criticism begantobeexamined. Whatwasquestionedthen.andcontinues tohe questionednow, were thephilosophy, theories,andassumptions aboutlanguagethat informededucational practice.In his article identifyingthreetheoriesof hmgungc,Bob Morgan(I987) makesjustthis point:
Myinterest isnotonly to showhowdifferenttheoriesof language cntail uniqueinterpretive strategies. but alsotoillustratethattheypromote or disableparticularunderstandings of sociality forbothteachersand students. Tochange one'stheory oflanguage,in this perspective,isto alter morethana curricular approachto speech or writing.Itistoredefine asocialspace andourpossible interactions within it(p. 449).
But concernfor changingthe.entrenchedtheories oflanguageisnetrestrictedto educators inEnglish compositionlikeBruffeeand Morgan. And althoughlinguistslike volosinovand Heatharemajorcontributors tothisdialogueforchange, callsalsocome from the writings of ThomasKuhninscience, LevVygotskyin developmental psychology, and contemporaryphilosopherslikePaulRlcoeurfor anexamination of the relationshipbetween languageandexperience. Whatis emerging isthat anindividual's viewandsociety'sview of language areintrinsicallylinkedwithlearning, politics, authority,and dailyhumanexperience.
Questionsarenowbeingleveled at rationalism,the dominantschool ofthought whichhas shaped the way languagehasbeen viewed in this century.Rationalism grounded in theCartesian-Newtonian thoughtof the17th and 18thcenturies is expressed in twolanguagetrends,empiricismandstructuralism.In the following discussion, Iwillexaminethemain premisesand the educationalpractices that have ensuedfromrationalism'sviews oflanguage, andcounter thisheritage with ideas that result in adifferentwayofseeing,ofeducating,andofbeing.Iseethepossibility for such achangemanifested inacollaborative pedagogywhose praxis flows from the activity of life.
The empiricistview holdsthat thereis "a one-to-onecorrespondence betweenthe objects in the world,thewordsinalanguage, and the concepts inourheads" (Morga..., 1987, p. 450).Accordingtovolosinov(1973),theideas aboutlanguagestemming from rationalism werefirst "sharply delineated .._inLeibniz'sconceptionof universal grammar"(p. 57). Rationalism seeslanguageas "a stable,immutable systemof normativelyidenticallinguisticforms" contained ina "given, closedlinguisticsystem"
ready-made for theuser,
Thefirstaspectoflanguagethisphilosophyignores isthedynamismissuingfrom the interrelationshipof the historical, the present, and thefuturecontexts. Volosinov claimsIhat thisviewprecludes "the present state ofa languageand the history of a language...entering into mutual comprehensibility." Thus,
individual actsofspeaking are,from the viewpointof language, merely fortuitousrefractionsandvariationsor plain andsimple distortions of normativelyidenticalforms•.. ,There isnoconnection,no sharingof motives,betweenthesystemoflanguage and itshistory.They are aliento one another(p. 57).
Volosinov'svoicerings out against such historicalobliteration when he says that under suchitsystem linguisticfactscannot be understood orexplained asthey reallyexist and aregenerated. Rather,thistheoryleadsus away from the"living, dynamicrealityof languageand itssocialfunctions" (p.82).Ricoeuralso saysthat
itis impossibletodivorce present languageuse fromits historysincenew experiencesfindtheir expressionby delvinginto the treasuryof historically established meanings.Becausemeaningsareneverlinnly established in theiruse,it ispossiblefor newexperiences to find a new outlet bymeans ofaccepted meaning.The acceptedmeaningsfunction thenas a guidefornew meanings(citedinVan DenHer-gel.1982, pp. 90-91).
Thatlanguagenot onlydrawson thepastand definesthe presentbutcontinually forges aheadasit attempts.to bringunderstandingj:-;exemplified bymetaphor.
vun
Den Hengel saysthat Ricoeurseesmetaphoricalutterance operatingsimultaneouslyin two referential fieldssince it linksitknown field ofestablished meaningswith an unexplored fieldofmeaning.For thatreason, inordertoexplorethenewfield of reference. the semantic aim reverts tothenetwork ofFamiliarpredicates and placesthemin the newfieldtohelpexploreit.... Meaningisnot a stablestaple,but11
"dynamic, directional,vectoral"form,which linksup with the semanticaim of the sentence to forge towardsitsfulfillment (p. 91).
Viewing language as afixedsystemof signsfailsto recognizethai"anyuncnmce is essentiallya social phenomenon" (Volosinov,197~',p.82)."A wordis territoryshared byboth addresserandaddressee, bythe speaker andhis interlocutor." Thestructureof utteranceisdeterminedbythe immediatesocialcontextand thebrander social milieus of pastandpresent. Thus, verbalcommunicationcannot beunderstood orexplained outsideofa connectionwitha concretesituation.Asvolc sinovsays,"language acquires life andhistorically evolvesprecisely here, inconcreteverbalcommunication, and not in theabstractlinguistic systemof language forms, nor in the individualpsyche ofspeakers"(p.95).
Withits beliefthata one-to-onecorrespondenceexists betweenwords,nature, and thought,empiricism"holds thatlanguageislikeawindowneutrally conveying the presence of the world tous;"an"innocent mediumthrough whichprelinguistic meaningspass" (Morgan, 1987,p.450).From adhering to such aview, two conditions result.First,the agencyof the speakeris reduced tochoosing the "proper"expression
from the establishedattematives.Second. thepolitics whichcouch both speakerand selection are denied. Morgan says,"Correspondencetheory is thedreamof alanguage intrinsicallygood andpure,embodying Reason itself."Unfortunately,subscribingto such aview"permitsthatsociety themisrecognitlon of its formsoflinguistic violence"
forthereis "always/alreadya politicsembeddedwithin language as well as a politicsof language" (p. 451).
Althoughstructuralismshares roots withempiricism,thismore recentapproach centralizesa setofcodes, conventions,andregular patternsthatarticulatetheworldin certainways. Whereempiricismcurtails the "agencyofthespeaker,"structuralism actuallydeniestheindividualthe roleof "guarantorofmeaning."Morgan states that
structuralisminfor msus thatstructuresandrelationsarethemost powerful forces in modernity, not individuals. and findsin languagethe very embodimentofsucha relationalforcefieldseeingitasthat objectivized form parexcellenceof ourcollectivesocial life(p. 451).
Languageas structuralistsseeit"always precedesandexceedsany individualsubject."
Thus. meaning isnot "owned" bythesubject.asitis incorrespondencetheory,but
"merelyrented, aby-product ofdiscourse perse."Ina structuralistworld,languageis seenas a generativeactivityin its own right.Itis aform of work.which produces "you and I,thatis, society,"Consequently,"structuralismdenies the language-existence dichotomy, demonstrating thatsignsare 'reality-generating'and not simply reality- reflecting"(p.453).
Ricoeuropposes any attemptto exclude people as makersofmeaning,Human effort anddesiretobe are"imbuedwithadrivetoward meaningand language" bothof whichareadrivetowards self-understanding."Itis a drive bywhich meaningmakes us whilewemakeit"(Van DenHengel,1982,p.126),
Volosinov (1973) sums up rationalism's viewof language when he states:
theidea oftheconventionality,the arbitrarinessof language,is a typical onefor rationalismas awhole,andnoless typical is thecomparisonof languageto the systemofmath emati cal signs.Whatintereststhe mathematicallymindedrationalistsisnottherelationshipof thesign tothe
actualrealityit reflects nor tothe individualwhoisitsoriginator,butthc relal;oll.tlIipofsign to sigllwithinaclou ds)'.ttemalreadyacceptedand authorized. Inotherwords, they areinterested only intheinnerlo.t:icof tile systemajsignsitself,taken, asinalgebra,completelyindependently of the ideologicalmeaningthargivethe signs theircontent(pp..57·.5N), And the aboveclaimis central tomy challenge.Regardlessofthediscipline,the language used,beitwritten, internal,orexternal, iscomposed ofsign'i whoseusc and meaningsrepresentthe ideologiesand interpretationsofacollectivepast and pre sent Words brimwithcontentand meaningdrawnfrombothbehaviorlind ideology.Wecom understandand respondonlyto wordsthat"engageus behaviorallyor ideologically"
(p.70) . Divorce of language fromitsideological rootsis, asvoloslnovasserts,oneof rationalism's mostserious errors,anerrorwhich I feelhas shapednotonlyeducation, hut society's view ofthehuman experienceitself. Andrighting thiserror is nothingshortof aKuhnian paradigmshift. arevolution,asit were,intheway we viewknowledge,our institutions of learning,andourownselves.
In thenext section,I want to amplify thevoicesofpeoplewho,becauseof their viewsoflanguage,encouragejust sucha shift inepistemology.Threaded throughthis discussionis a concernfora relevantview of authority.The voicesI have listenedtodo not discount theimportance ofauthoritybut,rather,the abuseofit,whichis authoritarianism.
CHALLENGINGRATIONALISTICVIEWSOFKNOWLEDGEANDWAYSOF KNOWING
Positivismstemmingfrom theCartesian-Newtonianview ofreality,recognizesus knowledgeonlythatwhichcanbe objectivelyverified. Phelps(1988) saysthat
"positivismoriginatedin the'verification theory ofmeaning,'thedoctrinethat a proposition ismeaningful onlyifsubjectto empiricalverification"(p.9),Because science uses empirical methods,ithas considered irsbody ofknowledge asanaccurate revealerof reality.Presently,and in thepastfewdecades,thispositionisbeing
questioned.BUI,asPhelps points out, it isnot science itsclf thatisbeing dismissed but the authoritarian assumptionsscience hasheld about itsbody of knowledge and methods ofknowing.
The attackonpositivism isnotdirected atscience,.,nor a scientific thinking us actually practiced,Ruther,it targetsthe position I willcall
'sclcmlsm' orpositivism,which refersto thedemand of science that the
explanatory methodusedbynaturalscienceshould be themodelfor intclligibilityinallcases wherehumans attempt todevelop valid knowledge(p. 7).
Phelps pointsoutthat this altitudeiswhat JurgenHabermascalls "science'sbelief in itself," whichis"the conviction thai wecanno longer understand scienceas oneformof possibleknowledge,butrather must identifyknowledge withscience"(p.T;,
Scientificactivity,having been informed by acorrespondence theoryoflanguage ,1IId reality,resultedin theoriesthoughtto mirrorreality
venlcully withoutchangingit.••. Thesebeliefs led amongother thingsto
idealization ofthe"objective attitudeof the neutral scientist,whocomesto hisobservations without preconceptions,historicity, orvalues.,"
Positiviststhought '.hatscientists had available tothem, orwould construct,a neutral observation languagethat wouldcarrywithitnoneof the connotations,prejudices,emotion,andothercontaminationsof ordinary or literarylanguage.Instead.it was tobe exact, formal, liteml, and univocal (Phelps.1988.p. 10).
ThomasKuhn(1970)in hislandmarkbook, The Structureof SctentlficRevolutions,is critica lof these assumptionsabout the "purity,"ofscientific language and practices.
Kuhnclaims that there are implicit bodies of "intertwinedtheoretical and methodological"beliefsthat guideall research.These overarching models. orparadigms, permit the interpretiveprocessesofselection, evaluation,andcriticism,
Kuhnclaimsthat both themaking explicitof a current modelandthe "shifting"to 1Inewparadigm requiretheextra-scientificactivitiesofdialogue,persuasion,and interpretation. But science has "disguised"these interpretiveaspectsofitswork by an authoritarian writing and use ofits textbooks,
Textbooksthusbeginbytruncatingthe scientist'ssenseofhis discipline's history... .Characteristically,textbooks of sciencecontainjust a bit of
history...in scatteredreferencesto thegreat heroes of nu curlier age.
From such referencesbothstudents and professionalscometofeellike participantsinalong-standinghistoricaltradition....Thetextbook tendencytomakethedevelopmentof science linearhidesIIprocessthat lies at theheart ofthemostsignificantepisodesofscientificdevelopment (pp. 137-140).
Kuhnclaims that generatingknowledge inscience is asmuch ofahermen eutical enterpriseasit isin any field inthehumanities.Likeall bodies ofknowledge,scientific knowledgeis entrenchedinhistory andculture, determined bybeliefnnd prejudiceand weightedwithvaluesand politics.DonaldMcCloskeysays that"thescientificpaperis.
after all,aliterary genre,withanactualauthor,andimpliedauthor,an implied render, II history,anda form"(cited inFaigley,1986, p.536).
As scientificempiricism hasdominatedepistemology, sostructuralismhasreigned in the disciplinesconcernedwith language."In his critiqueof structuralismRicocur warnsagainsta structuralistideology,which he calls the'for-the-sake-of-the-code- fallacy'"(Van Den Hengel,1982, p.135). According10Ricoeur, thenaming of something is more important to structuraliststhan its connection and meaningfor life.
Thisis a position known asnominalism. Underits influence,theartorrhetoricand persuasiondeclinedto a "theoryofstyle and finally to11theory oftropes."Rhetoric's
"bondwithphilosophywas brokenand itbecame thearchivistofthefigures ofspeech."
Ricoeur says, according to VenDen Hengel, thatthe strugglefor meaningdeteriorated intoa senselessword-gameprecisely because ofthe 'tyrannyof the word'(p.2M).
Yolosinov's(1973)ideas harmonizewith those of Ricoeur'swhen he explains that discriminating between aword's commonand occasional meanings, or itsdenotativeand connotativeaspects,orcentraland lateral meaningsis"fundamentally unsatisfactory."
Underlyingsuchdiscriminationsis the desire to"ascribegreatervalue tothe central, usual aspectofmeaning,presupposing that that aspect reallydoesexistand is stable."
Suchanassumption is "completelyfallacious"(p.102),declares Volosinov.VanDen Hengel (1982)saysthat"English languagephilosophyrejects suchanominalism,Rylc
emphasi zedthatwordshavemeani ngonlyto the extent thattheyareused.Awordhas no propermeanin g"Ip.28).AsWittgenste in (l9S 8) states,'The meaning ofa word isits uscin thelanguage~Ip.2Oc,par.43)."Every slgn,"continueswhrgenstein,"by ilself seemsdead.WhOlgivesitlife'?Inuseitis alive"(p.12t;e, par.432).Langu age is not fixedandstable.Itisdyna micandeach utterance,"nomatter howweighty and completeinandofil~lf,~is~on)ya momentinthecontinuousprocess ofverbal communication"(Volosinov,1973.p.95).Butsucha view hasnot beenapartof structuralist lhought.AccordingtoVolosin ov,"European linguisticthoughtformed and maturedoverconcernwiththecadavers of written languages;almost allitsbasic cnrcgorles .. .approaches,and techniques were worked out in theprocessofreviving thesecadavers"(p.71),Becontinues bysayingthatitwas
"philologic alneed"that gavebirthto linguistics,rockedits cradle, and left itsphilological flutewrappedinitsswaddlingclothes.Thatflutewas supposedtobeable toawakenthe dead. Butit lackedthe range necessary for masteringliving speec has ac tuallyandcontinuously generated(p.72).
Viewingthe word,and thusknowledge,as"stable:has led to authori ta rian practices in Englishand languageartsclassrooms,Gibson(1986)saysthatmainstream literary criticism,rather than confronting the socialandhistorical realities whic h
"determineliteratu re'sproduction andreception: hasevadedthese realities byfocusing
on the"words ona page,"thedetai ls ofanarrative.and the"structureof thehuman mind,myth,langu age,"
Because of thesemis-directi onsoffocus, convennc nalHterarycriticismis elitist,sexist,unpoliticalandindivid ualist.To divorceliterary and aesthetic mailersfrom their socialcontext istornisperceivethem,•. Shakespeare cannot beunderstood withoutreference totheeconomicand political system of his age andours(pp. 98-99),
Holdingthat knowledge is "fixed "has also led to anauthoritarian use of text.
Ricoeursaysthatstructural analysis "pro ves itselfwhenit permits abetter understan dingof themessagethanafirst surface reading.Itbecom esideological when itrefuse s to gobeyond fhe text.•.."(cited inVanDen Hengel,1982,p. 51). Readingin
10
astructuralist's classroom isanalogoustodecipheringacrypticcode,or findingu hidden message.Thismessage,consideredto be knownin itspurity lindentirety onlybythe author,whoin many cases isdead,isknownin aspure a form ;\spossiblebythose astute in literature.Here, interpretationis reduced tobreaking thecode or delvinginto someoneelse'sworldor psyche.
Forvoloslnov,language has everything todowith thelivingmoment,nol ..
probing ofa distant psyche.ForRicoeur,genuine interpretationhasfarlesstodo with code,tropes, and formal studyof figuresof speech than withthe"ontological trait of language."He stresses thatthetext is a "formof life" undas such must he "moored" to thelife of thereader ratherthan the original author. "Understandingisthefirst step of bringingbacktolifeIIparticulartext" (Van DenHengel,1982, p.196). Van DenHengel, expressing Rieoeur'sideas, continues:
the unmooring ofthetextfromits originalsituationalsoallows thetextto drift awayfromits originaladdressees.Gadamerproposes,therefore,that the textis addressed toanyone whocan read.Atextlosesits restrictio n;it isbasicallyopen.• . .The textofthe Letterto the Romans isminetoread just as atonetimeit wastheRomans.Theletter assumesane wlime dimension.Paul'soriginal writing takes onauniversaldimension,always ready totake onnew readersand to actualizeits reference in new situations....In readingIam being takenwhere Iwasnotbefore.I lake upanewdwellingin the worldof thetext.Bothmy situationand the mutetextaretransgressedandinterlinked(pp.201-202).
Volosinov (1973)calls thisthe "dialecticalgenerative process" inwhich "ane w significanceemanatesfromanoldone,and does sowith itshelp,but thishappens so that the new significancecanenterintocontradictionwiththeoldoneand restructure it"(p. 106).Ricoeur,in harmony with this idea,saysthat
theaccomplishmentofread ing isits powerto transform the otherness of the text intoan event ofdiscourse forme.•.•The event ofdiscourse of the reader is anew event; thatis,notarepetitionof the originalevent,but a creationproducedat thebehestof thetext(citedinVan DenHengel, 1982,p.210).
If a Ricoeur ian-typehermeneuticsisincorporatedintoEnglishand language classrooms,the question"What does thistext mean?"can nolongerbeused as a
11
bludgeon fordisseminatinga typeofknowled gethatisrestrictive and monophonic.
Validation mustbegiventomany different typesofknowledge andthedifferentways peoplecome tokno wledge.InWomell'sWuys ofKllo wi!,g,Belenky,Cllnchy.
Goldberger.andTarule (1986),describe thesilencewomen,inparticular,havefelt ina worlddominatedby abstractreasonand formulaicthought. Through interviews witha number ofwomen,theseauthorside n tifydiffe rent kinds ofknowledge andways of gene rating the vario us kinds ofknowl edge.The follow ing is alistwhic hcome sfrom six chaptertitles:"ReceivedKnowledge: ListeningtotheVoicesofOthers;""Subjective Knowledge:TheInnerVoice; " "Subjec tiveKnowledge:TheQuestforSelf;""Procedura l Knowledge:TheVoice ofReason;""Proced ural Kno wledge: Separateand Connected Kno wing;" and,"Constructed Knowled ge:IntegratingtheVoices."Althoughthislistis not exhaustive,it is characte rized by opennessandpolyphony.
But I do notthinkitis sufficienttojust "allow" or"tole rate" otherkindsof kno wing.Becausethe silencecreated byratio nalism'simposi tionshas beendee p and strong,wemustfoster and promote,as Belenky,etal.say, "theroarwhich lies onthe other sideofsilence."And this is exactlywha t Jsee collaborativepedagogydo ing,
IfwelinkRicoeur'sideas about languagein thehumanitiestoKuhnianthought in the sciences ,wehear a distinctandsignificantcall for change in how knowledge is generated. Common tobothmenisarecogn itionof the indispensable practice of interpretation groundedand developed in thecollectiveand inculture; atypeof interpretationwhich illuminates andlorexpose s explicitandimplicit assumptio ns;atype ofinterpretation whic hseeksmultiple alternati ves fo rconsideration.Itisan interpretation which,saysRicoeur,is a "diale cticofexplanationand understanding,"
whoseconcep tion and continuationstems morefromontologicaldesire thancognitive prowess.Itis an interpretati onbased on theunderstandingthat,asFoucault says,
"language isnolonger linked totheknowingofthings,but to mea'sfreedom" (citedin
12
Morgan, 1987.p.453).The pedagogywhichIsee embodyingsuch an interpretive praxis is collaborativepedagogy.
Inthenextsection, Iwillcontrast learning environments informed byratio nalism with those espo usinga collabo rative pedagog y.
LEARN INGENVIRONMENTS
Descarte s'"1think, therefore I am" revealsnotonlythecenrmluyofrationalistic modes of thinking,previouslydiscussed , butalsothe supremacyofindividualismduring the Enlightenment. Two groupsofphilosophersiharprofoundl y shapedwestern educationwiththeir own vers ionsofindividua lismweretheeig hteenthcenturyliberals andthenineteenth centurySocial-Darwinists.
Theliberals viewedman as an"isolatedand ultimate consciousness."As such,a~~
Richard Brcsio (1972)explains,manwas seen as "inhe rentlyself-sufficientandsecure.
Man .. .was seeminglydivorcedfrom the societyofwhichhe wasapart"(p.12 ).lie continues."bo urgeois theoryregarded the individualmindas a separateentity complete ineachperson isolatedfromnatureandfromother men"(p.25).Suchan"exaggerated emphasisonthe individual"rather thansocietywasto "plaguewestern society." ltis thisthinking thatunderliesthedidacticclassroom ofthis century.
Viewingeachstudentas a "separateentity" has resultedin the "medicalmodel"
whichpervadeseduca tion.Gibson(1986)says that suchamodel is based not onthesocialsystem inwhic hthelndividual chtldis embedded,but on thebeliefthattheindividualchi'dpossessesintrinsic.
objective,identifiableandmeasurable characteristics(or rather. doesn't possessthose objectiveandothercharact eristic)thatmark... "normal"
childre n(p.143).
AsBro sio states,"Consciousnessmaybe private.butwhen menactthey do so in apublic world."As Mannhe im(1936) says,although there isno suchthingasa"group mindwhich thinks over and abovetheheads of individuals ... neverthe less,itwould be
13
false to deduce.. .thattheide as...wh ichmotivatean individualhavetheirorig!nin himalone,andcanbeadequatelyexplained-intermsof his personalexperience(p.2).
When educators perceivesudentsasisol a tedacademicpatients,atleasttwo
situatio nsresult.First.thepictureformedofthestudent isextre mely incompleteand
disrorted.Second,thisallowseducatorsto claimthechildlearne ris"deficient" rather than thesystem, asGibson(1986)pointsout.
Accordi ngtoJa mesBlock(198S),the Sc cia l-siarwinists "interpreted and institutionalized"theideasof CharlesDarwininAmericanpubliceducatio n.Centra lia Darwirvantho ughtisthe ideathathumanbeingslikeother"biologicalspeciesevolve accord ingtothe lawsofnaturalselectio n:Bloc ksaysthat the Social-Darwinists elaboratedon this assumption byurging"ihecreation01particularsocialenviron ments 10help the natural selection process"(p.12).Itwasthe publicschoolsinpartic ular that 'were chargedwiththe responsibilityofcreatingeduca tional environme ntswhereinour mostnaturally talentedstudents couldbeidentifi edandsonedfrom theirlesstalented JlCC" "(p.12l .
To carryout this mand ate,educatorsdeveloped a grading process inwhicha student's naturallearning talentswere"repeatedlyandsystematically"pitted in increasinglystiffer competitionsagains t W tale nts of other students.AndasBloc k
slates."central10thisprocesswasone operatingassumption:the processmustreify, not
challenge.the basicnotion thatonly a few stude ntsprobablyhad the righ t academic stuff ' (p.12). Inthefo llowingstatement.Mort imer Adler(l982)stresses how counterproduc tive todemocra ticidealssuchdivisions are.
Equalityofed ucationalopportunityisnot,..pro videdifit means110mor e thantaking allthe children intothepublicschoolsfor thesamenumber of hours.days.andyears.Ifoncetherethey aredividedinto thesheep and the goats. into thosedestined solelyfor toil and thosedestinedfor economicand politicalleadershi pand foraquali ty of lifeto whichall shouldhave ac cess,then thedem ocraticpurposehas been undermi nedby anined eqnatesystemof public schooling(p.5).
14
And in thesorting process, especiallyfor those chi ldren under considerationfor specialneedstreatment.JulienneFord says, "thereissomethingapproachingamnniu fur testing,classifying,measuringandassessing"(citedinGibson. 1986.p.145 ).Ford calls this"instrumenta l rationality"infullforce."The testingindustry,withits nnendant claimsto beunbi ased,objectiveandscientificha s powerf ullygrippedteachers'mind s"
(p. 14S).
In his effectiveanalogyabout thetesting procedu reswhic h allow individua ls10 pursuetheirnaturalcourse,Block says thai
collectivel y andeffectively, these procedu resmadeschool learning into11 sequenceof progressively more competitive horseraces whereineach race was designed to spread its enteringstude ntfieldaround the track dependingon theirIlaturallearningtalents. Those whowon,placedor showedin their respectivelearning races were the nallowed10race once again againsttheircounterpartsfrom other learning races. Andthe"also rans"from eachrace were formall y andinf ormally allowed 10dropbythe wayside viaa whole host of regularandremedialinstructio nal prog rams (p.1 2).
Becausethe theorystemming fromthese twogroupshas shapededucation practice in thiscentury. thelandscapes of manylearning envlronmcnts urccharac terized by indiv idualscompeti ngagainstoneanother in the contest fornuionulknowledge under the assumption thatthisisnaturetakingitscourse.Gibson, like othercritical theorists,takes exceptio n tothis assumption.He saysthat critical theory rejects the assumptionofanindivid ual having intrinsicqua lifies,arg uing thatthey represent"social and hist oricalprocesses masqueradingas'natural'" (p.143). WhenIIteacher's practice adheres,consciouslyorunconsciously,tobothliberalism 's viewthat theaccountability forlearn ing restsmainlyonthe naturaltalentsof the indiv iduallearner and the Social- Darwi.nist'sem phasisoncompetition,the classroomcanbea verythreate ning environmentfor many students.
Whenwe piece together thepractices and ideaswhichhaveresultedinlea rning environmentsincorporatingfe atures ofcollaborativepedagogy,theclassroomscene looksaltogethe rdifferent.
15
John Dewey's ideasabouteducation.articula tedin thefirstthird ofthis century, presented a strong challengeto educationa l practic es based oncompetitive individualism,Dewey's writingscallfor a typeofeducationalexperiencerootedin democrati clife.Dewey sawnowayofdivorcing suchexperience fromcollective Interaction,Ilisideas and classroom practiceshinged on hisieoceptofcommunity .If Dcwcyiuntheoryhad sha pedclassroommethodolo g yfromthen untilnow,it islikel y thatther e would be much documen tationand knowledge about interaction ofthe classroomcollective. But.accordingtoBrosic (1972), there werespecificforces which prohibitedDewey' s ideasfrombeingaccepted. DuringWorldWarIIand the begin ning of Iheco ldwarthere was "amoratoriumonserioussocial and educationalcriticism"
(pA).And inthefifties, scientificandtechnologica l prowessmotivatedby corporate prorhconsumedtheenerg iesof people,Dothinthe workplaceandthe educational institution s.Theconcernagain was with objectivephenomenon,thelearning ofwhich Friere(1990)objectsto stronglyinhisPed agogyof/lieOppressed.Freirecallssuc h learningthe "bank ingsystemofeducation "inwhic h
the scopeof actionallowed tothe students extends onlyasfar as receiving,filing, andstoringthedep osits.Theydo ... have the opportunity to becomecollectorsorcataloguers of the thingsthey store.
Butillthe last ana lysis,itismenthemselves whoarefiled awaythrough the lackof creativity, transformatio n,and knowledgeinthis (atbest) misguided system. Forapartfrominquiry,apartfromthepraxis,men cannotbetrulyhuman.Knowledgeemergesonly throughinvention,and re-inventio n, throug h therestless.impatient, continuing.hopefulinquiry menpursueintheworld,with the world, and witheach other(p. 58).
In England duringthesixties, somescatteredandisolatedvoicesof protestbegan soundingagainstsuchpassive, meaningle ss schooling.Asmore educatorsbegan acknowledging tha iweare fundam entally social beings,the callwentforthfo~ l~arning
environmentstha twerecharacteri zedbythe collec tiveinteracting. Abercrombie (1960), in711('AnatomyofJlldgmemgivesthefirstdescription of what I wouldconsider a coursebasedonaspects ofcollaborative pedagogy . Comparingher medicalcourse to trudidonalieuching. Abercrombiesaystha tin didacticclassroomsthe studentcomes toa
16
conclus ionandfindsit tobe rightor wrongby "comparisonwith theteac her's(or the currentlyaccepted)version." But inthe discussionme thod ofte aching
the studentle arns by comparing his observationwith those of tcn or so of hispeers.He com paresnot only the res ults but ho w the re sults were arrivedat,andindoingthistherange offactors takeninto consideration is much widertha n is usual indidactic teaching(p.19).
Abercrombiefound thatthestudentswhohadtaken thecoursedid "signil1cantlybcucr'' than othersin their ability to discriminate, todraw fewerfalseconclusio ns.to enterta in morethan one possiblesolution to a problem and to beless "adversely"swayedby previous experience.Overall,Abercrombie foundthese studentsto be "moreobjective andmore flexible intheirbehavior"(p. 19).
AlthoughAbercrombie'sprimaryconcernwasincreasing students'abllhiesto makebetterjudgments. her resultssupportamajorprem ise of collaborativepedagogy.
Becausewomanandmenareembedded insociality.learningiseffective when the conditions inwhich itoccursrepresent thedialogic interactiveness whichcharacterizes alloflife.
During the 19608,the UniversityofLondon Goldsmith'sCollege issued a seriesof fiverep orts,each composedof editedworkingpapersconcernedwithchanging the educationalenvironmentfor adolescents14through18. Of specinlconcern in the fourthreport.entitledThe Education of tile YoungSchoolLeaver,wererhcyoung peoplewho leftscho olat 15 toenter the workplace.The editor,Kenneth Rudge(1966) writes:
Education cannotbe splitintofieldsofconcernany morethan society itself should bedivided socially, intellectually orculturally.C.~.1.Fleming has said that"thementalhealth of a community isindivisible."Atallstages of education theunity andwholenessof the community needsto be emphasized, ra therthandifferences whichcaneasilybefound.This can bestbe achieved through aneducational prog ram whichreachesoutasfar as possible into accumulatedexperienceandexposestheinfinitely complexinter-relationshipsand inter-dependabilities of mankind rpp. 4·5).
11
Theneed for integrating learning,work.andleisurethroughdialogicinteractionis stressed throughoutthe report. Neartheendofthis rep ort Rudge,in order"to overcome a paucityofdialogue,"offers alucidde scription of collaborativepedagogywhich he calls"themost usefulcycle of activitiesto useforthrashingoutof questions." To explainthe purposeof the cyclehe says,
inthisprocessmorethan inanyother.personalinvolvementofthe studentscan be guaranteed.Theirown motivesbecomeopento question - insupportive not hostilecondition. For manythiswill prove aneeded therapy as well.ISenerge tic learning(p.38).
Two featuresof an envi ronmentbasedon collaborativepedagogystandout in the abovestatement.First.thisis a student-centeredenviro nment. Ina collaborative community,highpriorit y isattachedto studentsbecom ingpersonallyinvolved.
Studentswill not only haveasay buta personalstake inand responsibilityfor the activitiesofsucha classroom. Because theclass is orientedaroundstudents,students' opinions, motives,andassumptionswillbesoughtandexamined. Isee thesekinds of knowledge issuing fro mtheirr.portant engagementofre flection,the secondfeature of collaborativepedagogy alludedtoin Rudge's explanation.
The importance of reflect ionincollaborativepedagogy cannot be stressed enough.Iseereflection inwhatDeweyreferredto as"reconstruction of experience."
"To behuman. accordingtoDewey,istotreat sensationas aprod which leads to composinga meaningf ultale"(Brosio,1972, p. 33).But whatmustbe understood is that
"sensationsare not kno wledge , becauseknowledge is thedeterminingof whatour sensations represent"tp.32). As such,
knowledge is neverimmediate....Things in the irimmediacyareunknown andunknowable.Kno wledge cannever be the direct graspofreality becauserawoccurrence mustbeplacedintoanantecedent-consequences continuumororderforan experience tobemeaningful for he who undergoes it(p.30).
I see this ideaofreflecti onencompassed inRicoeur's principle of"distanciation,"as well.
According to Ricoeur,
18 humanparticipationin Being seeks tocome to und e rstanding.Icanonly dosotothe exten t thattheexperien ceofparticipati onis externalize d.
And this occursatthemoment whenweinterrupt ourpartici pationin order to signifyit....Our veryparticipati onin Being requ ires distanciatio n. . .. Distancia tion istheconditionofthepossthunyfor the interpretati on of part icipation(van Den Hengel,198 2. p.109).
When we reflect onor"distance"ourselvesbyconsideringorlooki ngback all
"sensatio ns"and"raw occurrences,"that is, experiences with people.happenin gs. or texis,we areinterruptin g outparticipa tion, extern alizing it inord e r10hnngmeanin gand establishconnections.Andagain,Ricoeurstates how ccn tralIangung ci.~formakingull experience meaningful:"Langu ageisthebasicexternaliznticnof being.. .. In the exterioriza tionoflangu a g e and or of someotherexterna l mark.theexperienceofbeing isinten sified"(p.109).Volosin o v(1973 ) sounds the same note when he says,
"Expression organizesex perien ce. Expressionis what first givesexperience ils for m andspecificityof direction "(p.85).AndDewey in the followingsuuemc mindicatc.~
howimportanttheintera ction ofacollec tive isforgene ra t ing alltypes of knowled ge:
"Knowl edgeis a functio nofassociation andcom munication: it de pendsupontradition, uponmethodsand toolswhicharc socially developed (p.32). Th us. ina co llaborative environment.membersofthe coll ectivearecontinuallyencourag ed todialogue with each otherorally.on paper,or thro ugh someother external mediu m,about theirfeelings, motives . assumptions. andopin io ns inorder tofo sterreffec rionthat is captured in journal writing.Suchreflectionthenfue ls subsequentdialogicencounte rswhich thenset in motionrecursi ve reflectio nand interpretation.Reflective engagementssuc hasthatjust described are con sistent with ide as ofSch on (1982),Kim(1991).and Hlmle y (198 9),
In thefifthrepo rt fromGoldsmith s'Collegeentitle dNewRolesfo r theLe amer, editorEdwin Mason (1969)makesadistinct callfor collaborative learning when he stales:
mostimportant ofallperha psisthe open ing-upof the possibilityoffully collabor a tivelearning.Whatwehave sa idsofar has stress edcolla boratio n betwee n studentswithin thecluster,andofstaff together in the focus- group.pooling expertise so thatstudents' work isnot shr u nkto the
19 personal limit s ofanygiven teacher....Atits best,collaborative learning involvesteacherand studentstogether facinginvestigat ions into phenomena whichare,insomeelementsat least,newto themboth.For this isthecurren t reality ofthehumancondition(pp.)fl-31).
In thisquot e,Masonmakes mentionofsomeimpor tan t featu resof learning environmentsespousingcollaborativepedagogy.Firstisthe ideaof"poolingexpertise ", Learning in this type ofclassroom is everyone'sresponsibility.Expertiseshiftsas learningprogresses andvario usavenuesarc explored. Altho ugh the teachermaybethe organizing"expert," afacilitator.tohelpthegroup beginitscollaborativeendeavors, the teacher isalearningpeerin theclass interac tion.Second,thegenerationof knowledge isanhonestexploration. The teacherisexploring with herstudentsthenewpathways decided bythe classroomcommunity.Thus,inthisenvironme nt,thequestionsarereal.
Thatmeansthey arc notquestions askedbyanautho ritarian figurewhoisalready privilegedtotheanswers, nor are they rhetorical questionsto which no answersare reallydesired.Rather,they arequestions whichsurfaceasmembersof a collective reflectanddialogueonexpe riences.ideas,and textsofall kinds inordertogenerate understanding and meaning .Third, whenMasonsays "forthisisthecurrent reality of the humancondition,"hepinpoints whatIfeel iscollaborativepedagogy'ssalient feature:itspraxis capturestheactivityofdailyhumanexperience,thatis,the dialogic interactions arisingoutof the needsandlor purposes of specific contexts. These features echovolosinov's viewof languagepreviouslydiscussed. Theseideas embody Ricocureani-nerpretatlonatwork ina classroomcommunity.
Near the endof'thisreportMasonstales:
Peopleneedpeoplewhothey cansee areencouragi ngthemand sustainingthem....Ifaschoolcallseeallitsmembers asunique individuals collaboratingincommonpurposes,itsvalueswillbe made plain,anditwillbeeffective lyopposed to cheaperval ues emanatingfrom those agencies whic hseeadolescentsas amass-marketandstimulatethem toact;IS IIherd (p. 59),
20
In this state menttwomorefeaturesimportantto collaborativepedagogy arcrevealed:
the nurturingaspectandtheimplicitrecognition oftheheterog eneity whichexistsin anyclassroombecauseofthediversity anduniquenessof itsindividuatrncmbers.
Collaborative pedagogydemands that thelearning environmentbechnrucicnzcd bynurtureand encouragement.Even inclassroomsnot organizedaroundcoltnhomtivc practices,adoption of afeministpedagogyby teachers like Elizabeth Flynn(1989)nnd JohnFlynn(1982)has resultedin'\nurturingdimension.Inatruly collaborative environment,athreateningand unfavorableclimateisacontradictioninter ms;
competitionisnotthe motivatorfor learning.Here,accoumubitityrestsnot onsmdcnts'
"naturaltalents"buton theirunique andpersonalcontribution to thevarious collaborative endeavorsand life of the class. In AShortCourseillWritil'.t:.an influential bookexplainingcollaborative ped agogy in acollegewritingcourse,Kenneth Bruffee(198 5)speaksabout anotherimporta ntfeature ofanurturingcnvlronmcnt.fbc freedomto takerisks.Hesays,"If welearn collaborutlvcly, whenwemakemistakeswe make themtogether.We'reall inthesameboat. Thus weareless afmidof risking errors thatareinevitable whenwetrytolearnsomethingnew"(p. 5). Bruffecalsoconcludes that whenweworktogether we "tendtomakefewermistakesbecause wehelpeach otherseethings we would nothaveseenonourown."
Collaborativepedagogy sees every groupasheterogeneous inspite of institutionalattempts to achieve homogeneity.Infact,crucial to effectivecol tabonnio n inanysetting isrecognizingthaidrawinguponthedifferences ofthe individualgroup memberswillresultina more comprehensiveproduct,project,andaccomplishmenlo The collaborative euvironrnentis onecharacterizedbyneg otiationandaccommodation.
Whendiffe rencesareviewed asadeterrent,not onlywillcertainindividualshe excluded,andthus silenced, butthe groupwillbeprevented fromdevelopingthelife skillsnecessaryforcooperationandconsensus. Lunsford andEde(I99()),intheir study ofcollaborative writing in variousprofessions,relateideaswhichcame outof their
2\
interviewwithEleano rChiogioji.Shesugge ststhat timebegive n todeveloping such skills.Writing collaborativelydema ndsthat peoplebeabletolisteninorderto synthesize differentview points.Aswell,trusting others' opinions and compromising arcmusts.Chiogiojinotes thaiwithsociety'semphasisonindividuality,compromisecan bedifficult10achie ve.-Traininginliste ning. and ingroopdyn amicsmight enable individualstocollaboratemoreeffective ly"(p.41),
The beliefthai childrenare"uniq ue individuals" is:101a return to enlightenment individual ismbuta guardagainstdiscriminatingin favourofcertainabilities.learning styles,and behaviors.HenryGiroux(1988)saysthatschoolsare
placeswhere dominantandsubordinate voicesdefineandconstraineach other...in responsetothe soclohistoricalconditions"carried" inthe institutional,textual, andlived practicesthatdefineschoolcultureand tcacher/studentexperience...•Schoolsare notideologicallyinnocent;
t-oraretheysimplyreproductive of dominantsocialrelationsandinterests (p.1J4).
ShirleyBriceHeath(1983) concurs: "Theschool isnotaneutral objectivearena;it isan institutionwhichhas the goalofchangingpeople'svalues,skills,and knowledgebases"
(p.368) .These she concludes arepartandparcelwith the acquisitionoflanguagein any community.Heath'swork in three commumtiesinthePiedmont areaofNorth Caroli nashowshow blatantly discriminatory leachingpracticesare whentheyfavoura particular languageand culturalcapital.She states:
Portions ofthe populationbringwiththemto school linguisticandcultural capitalaccumulatedthroughhundredsof thousands ofoccasionsfor practicing theskillsandespousingthevaluestheschoolstransmit,Long beforereachingschoollthese]children.• •havemadethetransition From hometo thelargersocietalinstitutionswhichshare thevalues,skills,and knowledge basesofthe school.Theireventualpositionsofpowerinthe schooland the workplaceareforedestinedinthe conceptualstructures whichtheyhavelearned at homeandwhieharereinforcedinschooland numerous etherassociations.longbeforeschool, their languageand cultureat homehasstructured forthemthemeaningswhichwillgive shapetotheir experiencesin classrooms and beyond.Theirfamilieshave embeddedthemincontexts that reflected the systemic relationships betweeneducationandproduction.Fromtheirbabybookstotheirguide books forparticipationinleague soccer,thesechildren havebeen motivatedtowards seeingtheir currentactivitiesasrelatingtotheirfuture
22
achievements.Theirsociallydeterminedhabits andvalues have created forthem an ideologyinwhich nlt thattheydomakes sense10theircurrent identityand theirpreparationfortheachievements whichwillframetheir future(p.368).
SherylFontaine (1988) pointsout that"research on language behaviorstrongly suggests that whenwe replacestudents'discoursewithOUfown,weare tampering with a wayof constructingknowledgeandviewingthe worldwhich is culturallybased"
(p.92).
Heathcautions:
unlesstheboundariesbetween classroomsand communitiescan be broken. and theflow ofcultural patternsbetweenthemencouraged.the schoolswillcontinuetolegitimate and reproduce communitiesof... peoplewhocontrol and limit the potentialprogress ofothercommunities and who themselvesremain untouched by othervaluesandwaysof life (p.369 ).
Fontaine'sideasforciblymakea similarpointwhenshesays,"ifwedonot recognize and accommodate[culturalbasesoflanguage], ourattitude towardthe established discourse studentsbringwith thembecomesadversarial;ourleachingfights the culturelind alwaysloses"(p.93),
Oneof the main pointsHeath makesin her landmarkstudy,andoneof mymain themes in thisexploration ofcollaborativepedagogy,ishowpervasivelanguage acquisition and usesof languageareto every aspect of life.Giroux(1988)concurs when hestates,"Itis within and throughlanguagethat individualsin particularhistorical contextsshapevaluesintoparticularforms and practices." Because"language represents a central forcein thestruggleforvoice" (p.135)thereisadirect relationship between affirmationofvarious linguistic capitalsandvaluingtheuniqueness of individuals.Thefollowingthreepointsthat Heath(1983)makes about howa communitysocializes its children merit carefulconsideration:
First.patterns oflanguageuse inanycommunity areinaccordwithand mutuallyreinforce otherculturalpatterns.such as spaceandtime orderings, problem-solving techniques.group loyalties,andpreferred patternsof recreation,
23
Second,factors involved inpreparing childrenfor school-oriented, mainstream successaredeeperthan differencesin formalstructures of language....The languagesocialization processinall itscomplexityis morepowerful thansuchsingle-factorexplanationsin accountingfor academicsuccess.
Third.the pattern s of inter actionsbetweenoral andwrittenusesof language arevariedandcomplex, and thetraditional oral-literate dichotom ydoc snot capturethewaysothercultu ralpatternswith ina community determinetheuses oforal andwritten language (p.344).
Collaborativepedagogy recognizes that an educator's viewoflanguage crucially shapes thelearningenvironment.
Schoolsareoneof theprimary public spheres where,throughtheinfluence ofauthority, resistance.and dialogue,languageisabletoshapethe way variousindividualsandgroupsencode andtherebyengagetheworld.In otherwords,schoolsare placeswherelanguage projects,imposes,and constructsparticularnorms and formsofmeaning.In this sense.language
docsmore[than]merelystraightforwardly present"information" ;in
actualityit isused asabasisbothto"instruct"and toproduce subjectivlties (Giroux,1988.p.135).
Here, then,insummary,aresomeof the philosophic assumptionsand featuresthat groundacollaborative pedagogy.First, student abilities arenotnatural,nor intrinsic.
Rather,they are products of a socialization,culture.and history which are embedded in language acquisitionanduse.Therefore,theaccountabilityforlearningrests on the people inpowerand the system theyhavecreated or tolerated and noton theind ividual learner.Second,uniqueness of theindividual isrecognized andvalued.This uniquenessisbest encouragedill aheterogeneouscontextwherenurtureand aflirmation ratherthancompetitionenergizesthelearning.Thisdemandsnot onlythe acknowledgmentof thedifferentlanguageandculturalcapitalsofthevariousgroup members,buttheuseof diverselanguage andculturalcapitalsasthebasisfor generating groupundpersonalknowledge inthe collaborativeendeavor.Nosinglelinguistic or culturalcapital,includingthe teacher's,isfavoured.Thus.expertise ispooled and authorityis shifted asknowledge is sociallygenerated.Third.worthwhilelearningis that whichenhancesand makeslife more meaningful.Thisrequires alearningpraxis
24
basedon the dialogic inten.ctionscharacteristicofhuman experienceandconcerned withunify ingthelearning,work,andle isure aspects oflife. Sucha praxissees1'1'1'(\' group regardlessof sizeor age asr-ninte rpreti ve communityin a specific context concerned withontologicalpurpose.
Once againwhatVcloslnovsays of realityistrue Inthe precedingdiscussion:
language dominates inevery area.Itis the only and absolutelynecessary vehiclefor the collectiveand theindividualto engagein life'sinterpretive activityOfwhatRicocur refers to as the "dlalecticls]of explanationandunderstanding."The aboveassumptions and the collaborativepedagogyemanatingfrom themare validregardlessof educational level ordiscipline.Because Isee collaborativepedagogyencapsulating life.Ifeciit providesa sound basisfor educationalpractice.
Becauselife is characterizedby complexity,diversity.andinterdependence,a pedagogybasedon life praxiswillhave"many faces."Allhougheach context espousinga collaborativepedagogywillhave the philosophicunderpinningspreviously mentioned.each contextwillderive itsownversionofthe collaboratlvceffort. Inthe nextchapter, Iwill describe the workingoutof collaborativepedagogyinoneparticular context.
25
Chapter Two
A ContemporaryContext for Collaborative Pedagogy
Wheninco rporating collabora tive pedagogy, a teachercannot fall backon ovcmrching models foreither process or learnerinvolvement becauseeachcontext req uires u uniqueadaptation ofthe collaborativeendeavo r.Althoughthe tea cher / facilitatoraims,as partof theagenda, toincrease skills,explorea genre,or illuminate assumptions, thepossible paths available to workOUIthe agendaare numerous,being sensitiveand unique10bothcontex tand the peoplewhoconstitute the group.
AsI began researching the collaborativepedagogy incorporatedinone university course, I, too,had anagenda. Itcanbe summarized bythefollowing questionswhicharosefromthe philosophicalconcernsdiscussedin ChapterOne: /11a course purportingtoadoptcollaborativepedagogy, what is considered knowledge.
and fromwhat sourcesdoes that knowledge originate?What is the instructor'srole?
What fosters or'finders studentexpression? How is the collaborativeendeavor uniquely sensitiveto this"articular groupojpeople?Myresearchplansincluded the following:takingnotes onthe classhappeningsand interaction,having accessto student writings, andrecordinginterviewswithindividualstudents and also the instructor.WhatI neither could nordidplan was myplaceinthis particular collective.
Collaborative pedagogydismissestheidea ofa present"non-participant"observeror the possibility of a "fly -on-the-wall" researcher.Rather.it sees anyandeverypresence havingIIuniqueeffect onthatcollective.Mypresencewould makea difference.My roleinthiliparticular group wouldunfold.Infact,I considered thisunfoldingprocess an importantpart of myresearch.
Forpurposesofstructure, Iwillalternate sectionsentitled "Window"with sectionscalled"Voices". In the"Window" sections.I will focuson a numberof class
26
sessions us ingas a lensmynotestakenduring or immed iatelyafterclasses.Inthe
"Voices" sections. Iwillpresentwhatmembersof this collectivesayviujoumal entries andtapedinterviews.Each"Window"and"Voices" segmentwillconcludewith a disc ussionhighlig htingthe particularaspects of collaborat ivepedagogyIfeelarc revealedinthe materialpresented.The numbersgiven10each "Window" and"Voices"
portiondo not correspondtothe specific weekin whichtheclass occurredorthe jou rnal entrywas writte n. Rather,they indica te the overallchro nologica lll rmn.£clllclll of material.Throughoutthe study, Iwillusefictitious namesfor students.
WindowOne
The classIwas to studywas a third-level special topics Englishcoursebeing offeredforthe first timeentitled"GenderandWriting."Since this coursewasun elective,people'sreasons forchoosingitwere varied. A numberwereinterestedin its concernwith gender issues: amongthesewere studentspursuingapath inwomen's Studies. Two peoplewere education majorswho needed onemore course10complete their degree andneeded aneveningslot(suchas thiscourse was in)sincetheywerc teachingfull-timeduringtheday. Otherswere therebecausetheyhadbenefitedfrom previousexperienceswiththisprofessor,Dr.Phyllis Arnss,inotherclasses.As well,Dr.
Artiss'sreputation was responsible for drawingothers intothis collective.
Beforethefirst class began, Dr.Artiss requested that thestudentsmovetheir desks to joinher ina circle.This seatingarrangementcontinued throughoutthe semesterwheneverthe groupmet as a whole.Dr.Artlssintroducedme andasked me to explainmy presencein the class andtalk aboutthe research Iwasdoing.I responded by saying that Iwas inthisgroup to explore the collaborativemethodologythatDr.
Artisswas incorporating. Iexplainedthatof specialinterest to me washowlanguageis viewedand treated and knowledgegenerated.Myplan wasto take notes on classes and,hopefully,to have access to whatwas writtenby everyoneconnected withthe
27
class.Iconcludedbysaying,"Iam nothereto rateor judge whatyousay and write.
Rather,I amattempting to document how collabora tive methodologyunfoldsin this particularcollective,"
Dr.Artlssthen gave out the CourseOutline(see AppendixA) and fromitread aloudthe followi ng agenda:
Thisclasspro vides an opportuni ty to considerquestions of genderinwriting, ourownaswellasthatof others.Itwillbeconductedas a series of workshops andseminarsinwhichweengagein writtenandspokendialogueto increase our awareness ofpower structures imbeddedinlanguage.and work towardschanging these.
In her introductorycommentssheinvited everyone present toenter,asitwere,a"parlor where a dialogue wasin process aboutlanguage and theassumptions andpower structuresunderlyingitsuse."Becoming a participant insuchadialogue meant first listening10 somevoicesthai werealready"in theparlor" andthenexposingand possiblyalteringourownassumptionsabout languageuse.Dr.Artiss,concerned that no onewould feelmarginalized atanytimeduring the course.said tothe group."Make meawareof anycliquishtendencies forming in theclass."Shestressed the importance ofopen dialogueandaskedthoseuncomfortable withthe idea ofdialoguingwithothers orally andin writtendiscourse,to comeand talkwith her.Dr.Artisshoped thechanges thatwould occuras a result of thiscollectivemeetingtogether would have
"reverberationsbeyondthisclass."
Next.Dr. Artiss passedout index cardsonwhichstudents wereto put names, phonenumbers. coursescompleted. reasonsfor takingthe course, the grade thestudent wouldbeworkingfor,and thekinds ofwriting theperson preferred.
Dr.Artiss thenreviewedthe"proposedevaluationscheme"for thetypesof requiredwritingwhichwasasfollows:[oumals .10%.analyticalpapers-30%.a collaborativeclassproject -20%.andafinal examination-20%.She then discussedthe
28
collaborativerequirement.According totheoutline. the "subject.format.styleand:111 otheraspectsof this project"wouldbe decidedbythe class,and the gradeassigned 10 the projectwouldbethesamefor allstude nts.Byher commentsitwasevidentthntDr.
Artiss hoped thisprojectwouldcrystallize and recordmuch oftheknowledge generated bythis collectiveover the term. Shestated he rpositionbysaying:
Languageis animportantwayof doingthings.an importantt~101forchanging the world.We usclanguage withotherpeoplebylistening, and engagingin a dialoguethat presupposesthatwe are alllearners. . .If wearegoingttlchange.
we need 10worktogether, This will not happenifthe classroom remains competitive andindividualistic. YOII,individuallyorin smallerunits,willdecide boththe issuesto address andponder.andthevoicesyou will payattentionttl,
Thenthesegleaningswillbeshared withothers.andtllissharingwillintum constitutethecollectivedialogue.Inthisway.we.asa collective.willsocially determinethe knowledgegeneratedin thisclass.
Immediatelyquestionsarose concerningthecollaborative project.
Apprehensions about thepossibilitythatpersonality conflicts mightariseinconjunction with the aspect ofonegroupgradewere expressed by somestudents.Anumberofthe comments reflected very negative pastexperienceswithgroup assignmentswhe re one or two peopleended updoingthe bulkofthe work.Andstillothersexpressed misgivingsthatthewhole classcould ever reachaconsensus on theparticulars ofsuch an assignment. Thosewhohad had previoussuccessfulcollaborativeexperiences stressed the importanceandvalue ofsuchendeavors.Dr.Artissadded that shehoped suchaproject would challenge andreflectassumptionsabout knowledge and questions about truth.ThediscussionendedwithChadexpressingskepticism, butulso a willingnesstoparticipate,
Dr, Artiss gavethefollowing assignments forthat week: writingaIocr-pnge minimumjoumalentry relatingthe writingrolemodelsin thestudent's life.readingthe
29
assignedsixessays from thetworequiredtextbooks.(Language irHerEye:Views0/1 WritillRandGenderbyCanadiallWomellWritingillEnglish.edited by LibbyScheier, SarahSheardandEleanorWachtel;Women'sVoices:V;S;OtlS andPerspectives,edited byPalC.HoyII,EstherH.Schorand RobertDiYanni)andrespondingtotwoofthe essays ina second(our-p:lge minimumjoumalentry.Dr.Artissendedthe classwith thesecommentsaboutthe assignments:
Readtheseesssays andmoreifyoucan.Yourwrittenresponses shouldnot
summarizetheessays.Rather,thinkofyourselfinadialogue withthesetextsand eurho-s.Don't restrict yourself.Try10enjoy whatyouwrite.Lookatthisas a beginning of a relationship.Beprepared10share yourinfonnal journalresponses insmallgroupsnextweek.Inaddition.feelfreeto writejournalentriesthat expre....s yourreactions te and feelingsaboutanyaspectofthisclass.
AsIreflectedonthisfirstclass. threeaspectsstood out.First,Dr.Artisshad agendas onanumberof levels.Heracademicagendaincludedgivingstudents opportunitiesbothto explorewhat formost was anew focus.writingbywomen authors,and10 expressthemselvesusing avariety of writtenfonns. The proposed evaluation percentages revealedthatDr.An.isshadexpectationsforbothparticipation andquality of work done.
Sheseemed10have anotheragenda foreachstudent.As the dialogueand interactionof the collectiveensued,sheindicated thatshe hopedstudents would begin identifyingandchallengingtheirownassumptionsaboutlanguageby realizingthe implicationsofthoseassumptions.
And thereseemed tobealarger agendawhich Dr.Artisshoped would berealized Ihrough thiscollective.Herstatementaboutthe changesthai occurredduringthe semesterhavingreverberations "beyondthisclass"combinedwith herviewthat
"language••.isanimportanttoolforchangingthe world" indicates anagendawith
.10
globalvision. This coursewas inexistence for purposes much greaterthanfulfilling electiverequirementsor gettinga goodgrade.Of fur greaterImportanceseemed tobeill'
impact on life throughpersonal and social transformation.Dr.Artiss'scomments implied thatshe was inthiscollective to be changed herself, tofosterchange in the students.
andbyso doing,insome wayto changetheworld.
Second.Dr.Artisssoughtinformationwhichwouldprovidesome insights on the startingpoints for eachofthe stude nts.Her use ofthree-by-Fi ve cards notonlygave convenientaccessto addressandphone numbers, but prov idedinitialinformation about why studentswere inthis collective.Andaskingstudents totell whatgradethey wanted toreceive was a wayforbothinstructor andstudents to establishstartingpoints for academicexpectations.As well. by assigningajournalentryonsignificantwriting rolemodels, Dr.Artiss helped eaehstudentidentifybackgroundinformation relevantto the contextof thisclass.Bydoing so, shecouldgaininsightsintothe startingpohu
or
each these studentsas writers.Thisalso allowedstudentsto personallysituate themselves inrelation tothe writingfocusof thecourse.Third,Dr.Artiss'seffortstofoster writtenandoraldiscoursewould be undergirded by examiningassumptionsabout languageand the"powerstructures imbeddedinlanguage."This collectivewouldbeInvolved inseeing howlanguagehas beenimposed andcurtailedbecauseof prevailing views.This collectivewouldbe encouraged torecognize,analyze,and changecertainpowerstructuresby seeingand usinglanguage asa tool.Thesestudentswere beingasked right from the start touse andactonlanguage ratherthan being acteduponand dominatedby animpositionof another'slanguage.
VoicesOne
Dr. Artisschosejournal writingasthe onlytype of writing tobedonethat first week.The followingjournalentrywas writteninresponse tothe suggested assignment.
31
Iuseamajor portionofAllison'sfirst journal entrybecauseinitsstreamlies a numberof points relevant to collaborativepedagogy.
Beforejoining thisclass,Ihad beencasuallyaware of thetensionsbetweenthe femalean~male literary world.'>.The onlyconcretecontentionIknewwasthatmen werecurrentlybeginning110beltoldthattheycouldnot featurefemaleprotagonists inany of theirstories becauseitrequiredaperspectiveforeignandunavailableto them. Furthermore,they werein no positiontocritique authenticallytheliterature fur.byandlorabout womenforsimilar reasons.WhileIthoughtthisratherelitist of womenandfeltrathera vaguesenseof reversediscrimination, Ithoughtlittle else ofit.Itmade sense,but wasnot an ideologyIfelta strong attractlcntoward.
Perhapsalargepart of thereasonformyshruggingoffthe can ofthe
"sisterhood"wasthe loyaltyinme towardthemostsignificantinfluencesin mylife.
ThewomanIamtodayhas benefitedlargelyfrom severo!menIhavebeenlucky enoughto know. WhileIam not settledinto my skin wholly,the direction1am taking antithe path Iamonpleasesmeimmensely.In short.rcan'tcomplainabout themale influencesin mylifeand[shudder] at thethoughts ofmylife without them.
Thislsthe state of mindandbackgroundthatfindsme in English3817today.
Reatling AliceWalker,thefirst thingInoticedwas heraffinity{towards]the
"sisterhood." I found myself distancedfromher for the verysimplereasonthatit wasmyfather who hadthe greenthumb andzestfor"gardening: Icouldeasily identifythecreativeandspiritualoutlets inhis lifeandmy inheritanceofthem.
Walkergotmethinking aboutmyown mother'sspirituality for thefirst time.
Didshefindanoutletor hasshedeveloped adysfunction from lack ofone?Forthe fil'5t time.Ibegantoseemyselfas my mother'schildinthestruggle for releaseof our spiritualities.I tapped a communionI hadneverknown existed.Itisa
32
wellspring Iwillnot easily come togrips with.Itwill lakeimmenseintrospection, reflectionandtime todecipher.
Virginia Woolf s essay hithomewhen shespokeofa roomofone's own. I, too, have longedforthespaceandfreedomtodevelop my mind and mycrnn.1 find thatwhileuniversity lifeopens theworldupformeIam frustratedbythe fasl pace,the crammedsemesters.the deadlinepressuresandthelack of freedom we have10wallow in what we arelearning- "Hereitis. Gotit?Good!Let'smove on."
ButIwonderifthecomplaintof thelackof aroom ofone'sown is perhapsn copout?Itistruethatlhedisadvantaged have10struggle harderto developtheir potentiality,bUIwhat ofit.Wemust take whatwehave andworkwithit.Theless we have.the less timewehave towhine aboutit,Surely, womenhavemoreto celebrateandmore tobeproud of whenthey reachtheirgoalpreciselyfor their hardship.Women do notcomer themarketindisadvantage,Thegreat philosopher Spinoza isaprime exampleof a strugglingauthor.
HeleneCtxous' essay waslost tome.Icouldnot even finish it.Itwas rndicel feminism andI found itviolentinstyle.Idisagree that wemust speakonlyto women; relate only towomen.That'sdefinitt:ly reversediscrimination.Menhave t.'leir language; we womenhave ours.Iftheselanguagesareincompatible,Ifeelwe must invent anew onethatwillallowustocommunicate honestly.Turning our backs is not a solution....
Lucelrigaray ...wasgentlerand more poetic than Ctxousbutshepreacheda similar sermon, Isuspect.Perhapsitwasthe foreignlanguagesandpoor translations,butI simplyhadtrouble graspingthesetwo women. I'mnot sureif thesexualcurrentswere meant literally or metaphorically. but I definitelycouldnot relate.
33
Iwasgratefultomove onto Annette Kolodny andmynative longue.WhileI foundher styledryitwas cenainly more comprehensible.Ibegan to gleanwhy, perhaps. Ireactedso adversely10the two previousauthors.As a studentofthe 1990's. Iwasnot victimizedbyhistorical canons to the degree thatallthese women were.Theyhad begun the fightandwontheirvariousbattlesalongtheway for me.In the true tradit ionofthe privilege d(inwhich they mademe).Iwas notable to appreciatefully what theygainedforme. Can one trulyknow thesufferingof hunger whenone hasnever starved?Ihave neverbeen bannedfromLoraries or forcedonly\0study male authors.Thepassionsofthese womenaredulledinme and Irecognizenow that Itake for granted whatthey accomplished.. . .
Mybiggestrole modelhas beena professoratthis university. A man. Acck!
He lit a fireinmethatIneverdreamedwassmoldering.He praisedand encouraged meand gavemea confidencein myselfIsorely needed.I'mnotsure
"rote model"is therightterm buthe wasmyonlysupportandfanclub forawhile.
To.~ayI learned a lot fromhimis an understatement. Isuppose Ihavemodeled myselfafterhim to someextent,butI'mnotfully awareofexactlywhattechniques orattitudesI inheritedfromhim.This islargely becauseI haven'tyet written enoughtoknowwhatmy styleandtechniquesare,or should Isaywill be.Itisfor thesamereason thatIcannotclaimanyrolemodelsin the authorsoutsidemy immediateacqualnrance either.Idon't see myselfas a wholewriteras of yet.Iam stillinan incubusstage. Thefuture willdeterminemy role models.
Theaboveentry reveals tome anumberof important startingpoints for establishing collaborativepedagogy, First.sincealearningenvironment espousing collaborationmust be student-centered. it iskeythatrightfromthebeginningeach studentsituates herself orhimself with the context ofthecollecti ve. Allison tellswhat she alreadyknew about"the tensionsbetweenthefemale and maleliterary worlds" prior 10taking theclass.She notesher own positioninrelation to currentthoughtand
