Preview this article: Comment and Response, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/49/7/collegeenglish11452-1.gif

Preview this article: Comment and Response, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/48/8/collegeenglish11572-1.gif

Over last decade collaborative learning has become an important method for college English teachers, who now realize that their own education rarely taught them how colleagues work together learn and make meaning in discipline, and who have rejected philosophically kinds of approaches teaching that isolate learners instead of drawing them together. In addition, problems for education in seventies and eighties-the changes in student populations, growth in number of nontraditional learners in collegiate body, alienating nature of learning in large classrooms with too many students, acknowledged decline of freshmen entry-level skills in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking-these and other challenges an earlier educational paradigm have shaken our faith in conventional teaching strategies and have called question our obsession with major metaphor for learning over last three hundred years, the human mind as Mirror of Nature. As Ken Bruffee has put it, this old metaphor insists that teachers give students as much information as they can to insure that their mental mirrors reflect reality as completely as possible and also insists that we help our students through exercise of intellect or development of sensibility, sharpen and sensitize their inner eyesight (Liberal Education 98). In this ground-breaking essay, Bruffee, drawing upon works of Thomas Kuhn, L. S. Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, M. L. J. Abercrombie, and Richard Rorty, advances an alternate concept of knowledge as socially justified belief. According this concept, knowledge depends on social relations, not on reflections of reality. Knowledge is a collaborative artifact (103) that results from intellectual negotiations (107). Bruffee explores curricular implications of knowledge collaboratively generated, always with one eye on classroom and other on philosophical underpinnings of new paradigm. But Bruffee's model, built on delicate and necessary tension between theory and practice, may not, I suspect, have guided much of what teachers are calling collaborative learning today. I mention this suspicion out of my recent investigations into issue of assessment generally as force in postsecondary

(1985). Multicultural literacy for faculty: Accommodating non‐native speakers of English in content courses. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 100-107.

Preview this article: Questions on Basic Skills for the Writing Teacher, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/28/4/collegecompositionandcommunication16351-1.gif

A REPORT in the New York Times of Thursday, November 7, 1974 (p. 43) that college textbooks are being simplified to meet the needs of poor readers; and the answers to some of the questions on the ADE Survey of Freshman English (ADE Bulletin, No. 43, November 1974, pp. 13-19) highlight the need for a careful investigation into the mysteries of college text selection. For those who teach in composition programs the quality of a textbook is an especially burning issue: one would think that whoever stresses the value of lucidity, of clear voice, of awareness of language and audience, would also exercise care in the choice of composition texts. But the news in that quarter is bleak, at least to my mind. The ADE Survey (sponsored in part by the Carnegie Commission) presents some shocking news about what is happening with freshman English texts, especially (but not exclusively) in community colleges. I should like here to look first at some specific composition textbooks with wide college audiences. I shall then try to move toward a general definition of effective classroom materials merely by suggesting questions we are forgetting to ask ourselves, but must ask if the textbook is not to vanish like the buffalo (it may already be too late-both the Survey and a letter to the Times of Monday, November 18, 1974 [p. 32] by teachers in CCNY's English department report that many college English instructors are abandoning textbooks altogether). The ADE Survey collected replies to a three-page questionnaire from 436 institutions in 49 states. Responding to a question on text choices for freshman composition, instructors most often indicated the Hodges and Whitten Harbrace College Handbook or the McCrimmon Writing with a Purpose as the basic book in the course. More than 100 institutions use the former; about 65, the latter. Among two-year units picking Harbrace were 21.6% of community colleges, 23.1% of public junior colleges, and 25% of private junior colleges. Selecting the McCrimmon text were 15.9% of community colleges and 30.8% of public junior colleges (percentages for four-year institutions are high for the two texts as well). Although I do not have many doubts as tothe effectiveness of these books for competent writers (I've used Harbrace with advanced students), both texts are ill-suited for open a..missions men and women. Aside from the high level of

Preview this article: Media Compositions: Preludes to Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/35/5/collegeenglish17393-1.gif

Preview this article: The Single Narrative Paragraph and College Remediation, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/33/6/collegeenglish18340-1.gif