I really enjoyed both articles this week. Both Brooke and Trimbur brought up ideas that were very relatable to me as a student, but also were ideas that I could see myself identifying and using in my own classroom someday. To that affect, I find myself wanting to make a mixture of Bruffee, Berlin, Brooke, and Trimbur to store away until I have students of my own that I can give this magic potion of learning and social discovery to. In a successful classroom, there needs to be a healthy balance of student interaction and self-sponsored learning, but there also needs to be time where the teacher can bring in his/her expertise and help grow the students' knowledge base to something greater and beyond the scope of their academic/cultural milieu. This is where Trimbur comes in, with his idea of stirring the pot, and seeing how the students react to new and different information. I like the idea of encouraging disagreement, and then trying to understand why and how the disagreement came about because I was definitely never told to (never mind rewarded for) disagreeing with most of my high school and college professors. Dissensus, which would somewhat leveling the power in the classroom, would also allow students to feel more comfortable, and combat their "underlife" of both attempting to just please the teacher or not being engaged.
I guess it comes down to the question Dr. Kemp asked on Tuesday of "Who owns students' learning?" The identity of the students need to change in order to find success in a writing class, and the teacher needs to let go of the reins of power long enough for a student to venture out and find a foothold. Supporting a "rhetoric of dissensus" would allow the students to be interested in the topic, and snag students in a way beyond what they would expect out of a classroom and from a teacher. After dissensus was establish, I really do think that students would be able to carry it from there and spin off into other discussions they originate and are interested in talking about with their fellow classmates.
You've made an interesting argument when you say that dissensus will "combat" the underlife of the students. I agree completely because I feel that this underlife is already based on dissensus. I also think teachers work hard to correct this underlife, and this is their dissensus. Interestingly enough, when students are given freedom from things that stymie their learning (or it seems to them), they often are ready to obey the established, traditional rules. Like we discussed in class, many times as students we've had the freedom to write as many or as little pages to argue something. Oftentimes, the students who receive this assignment complain because the teacher is simply being to vague. This could be 100 pages! Or if I just write 1 page, is he/she going to give me a bad grade?! These "novel" forms of rebellion usually come out as threats toward the teacher's rule of the classroom. On the other hand, a 15-page paper due by next week is simply off-the-wall and way too much to ask. What if it only takes me 10 pages to make a good argument? And the whole thing goes on.
ReplyDeleteSo I wonder as you do about this. Is this the way to answer a "natural" rebellion? It certainly doesn't leave as much to rebel against that won't be assigned.
I agree with your assertion that supporting a rhetoric of dissensus would get the students interested in the topic. However, I think the problem lies in getting the students to think critically enough about something to get to the point of dissensus. Like Dr. Kemp keeps bringing up, getting the students to disagree about the 7 deadly topics is easy enough, but how do you get them to a point where they can disagree about something like a reading of an article like "Why a Global Language?"? I think that the beauty of the composition classes here is that we're trying to get across the idea of reading a text critically. How does this article do something? Why does it do something? Do you agree with it? Does it make you want to do something? Does it make the audience want to do something? Does it fail in any ways? They need to know how to look at something in these ways before they can begin to understand how to carry on a rhetoric of dissensus. Hope that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteExactly. The answer to the question, "Who owns student learning?" is very important. As it stands in most classrooms right now, teachers seem to own students. This is completely ineffective. No wonder students dislike school! They need to have their own stake in learning, their own responsibility. If they have to answer to themselves, they will become better students and better people.
ReplyDelete