• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Criticism and Commentary on Bruffee and His Ideas

Responses/Replies to Bruffee by Other Scholars

Elbow, Peter. “Peter Elbow Responds.” College English 46.5 (Sept. 1984): 504–507.

In this response Wiener discusses Aronowitz’s comments on the issues facing collaborative learning. Wiener reflects on his own difficulties in allowing students to work independently when using collaborative learning techniques and the importance of collaborative learning in allowing students learn how to approach and work through problems on their own. Wiener asserts that learning to work independent of the instructor is an important element in the collaborative classroom and evokes lessons from Bruffee’s A Short Course in Writing.

Book Reviews on Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge

Belanoff, Pat. “Review.” Journal of Higher Education 66.4 (Jul. 1995): 483–485.

Scott, John Anthony. “Review.” The History Teacher. 33.2 (Feb. 2000): 267–268.

Secor, Marie J. “Review.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 24.½ (Winter 1994): 125–127.

General Criticism

This book chapter discusses the trend of cultural studies in composition. John Schib describes Bruffee as a postmodernist in regards to Bruffee’s association with figures like Rorty, Fish, and Thomas Khun, but criticizes Bruffee for “ignoring the social constructionists’ difference differing versions of the social” (183). Schib argues in regards to Bruffee’s use of the word “social,” and states that Bruffee “fails to consider its function in different historical conjunctures” (183) and that many of Bruffee’s ideas on community and collaboration should be more firmly grounded in historical instances and a study of historical group dynamics. Schib also questions Bruffee’s definition of “normal discourse” in his 1984 article “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” Schib points out that Bruffee does not address “varying degrees of normal discourse among [the professions], nor does he anatomize their current discourses to verify his claim” this leads to what Schib believes is a misrepresentation of the English discipline. Schib also points out that Bruffee treats all disciplines as having a normal discourse, and believes that this is untrue and does not account for changes within the history of disciplines.

In this article Donald C. Stewart questions the premise of social constructionism and the collaborative learning model that is founded on its principles. Stewart traces this history of collaborative learning and Bruffee’s use of several key figures in preparing his own collaborative learning model. Stewart acknowledges that there are some things that are “right” with collaborative learning (mainly its discarding of the authoritarian traditional classroom, the involvement of students, potential humaneness in group work, and recognition of the role of social forces in language and meaning), but points out there are several key faults in collaborative learning. He offers that the individuals writing about collaborative learning offer a selective history of classroom practices in 1.) misconstruing the use of authoritarian in historical classroom settings, 2.) telling only “part of the story” of the 1960s, and 3.) displaying ignorance about World War II history. He also criticizes the proponents of the field for their failure to create a standard definition for the word “collaboration.” In addition, Stewart addresses what he feels are the “pedagogical limitations of collaborative writing,” stating that they are limited while exploring various ramifications for collaborative ideas on normal discourse. In response to his criticisms of collaborative learning Stewart expresses his concerns that’s students are “vacuums waiting to be filled,” and that most writing teachers do not have the history of their own professions. Overall, Stewart finds the basis of collaborative learning unsound and expresses his hopes that its major proponents will look at their practices more critically.

In this article Trimbur discusses the two major criticisms of collaborative learning. The first “argues 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 refers to Thomas Johnsons criticism of Bruffee as Orwellian and practicing group think in his classrooms and Beade concerns of a “crazy, totalitarian state.” The second criticism asserts that “Bruffee’s social constructionist pedagogy runs the risk of limiting its focus to the internal workings of discourse communities and of overlooking the wider social forces that structure the production of knowledge” (603). In response to these criticisms, Trimbur urges that the politics of consensus depends on teachers’ individual practices. Trimbur traces the focus of consensus in collaborative learning in Bruffee’s career and connects Bruffee’s ideas to those of Rorty and Thomas Khun. Timbur points out that looking at consensus in terms of agreement, rather than conflict as most critics do, offers a different understanding of normal and abnormal discourse. In defining this different understanding Trimbur explores Bruffee’s understanding of terms like “struggle,” and “power” and asserts that it is Bruffee’s use of consensus and conversation in “real world” situations legitimizes his ideas. Trimbur ends his article with the notion that redefining consensus can help the classroom to move away from utopian forms of real work consensus and “offer a way to orchestrate dissensus and to turn the conversation in the collaborative classroom into a heterotopias of voices – a heterogeneity without hierarchy” (615).