Trimbur Response

In John Trimbur's article, "Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning," the author aims to examine two important criticisms of the collaborative learning process. The first criticism argues that use of consensus is dangerous and stifles voice and creativity. The second criticism argues that things like selves, knowledge, readers, and writers are indeed socially constructed. In evaluating these two critiques, Trimbur concludes that consensus does not need to result in accommodation- this only contingent upon teachers' practices. He feels consensus is a powerful tool for generating differences, identifying authority, an determining who has the power to speak and what counts as a meaningful statement.

First, Trimbur looks at arguments from those who believe that consensus is harmful, like John Dewey. Dewey believes that the consensus will lead to conformity and feels that "the individual should be saved from the group." Trimbur argues that this is extreme and untrue, and that fear of consensus will prohibit peer groups from occurring and helping students to learn. By preventing a class of students from becoming a participatory learning community, students miss crucial guidance and positive criticism that their peers could elicit. This reminds me of the cliched saying, "two heads are better than one."

The second critique, strongly supported by Ken Bruffee, veers in the opposite direction of the first critique. This critique emphasizes the influence of using the classroom and culture of teaching in individual learning. Bruffee suggests that "how we teach" is "what we teach." Bruffee follows Richard Roty's notion of conversation, which states that "learning is a shift in a person's relations with others, not a shift inside the person that now suits him to enter new relationships." Although Trimbur agrees with both Bruffee and Roty , he also believes that collaborative learning needs to be looked at as more than just a process of consensus-making- it needs to be taken a step further.

Trimbur believes that collaborative learning needs to be seen as a process of identifying differences and locating these differences in relation to each other. Furthermore, he suggests that we need to begin collaborative classes by asking why interpretation has become the unquestioned goal of literary studies. This, in Trimbur's opinion, will help us to see what kinds of readings have been excluded and devalued over time. Students have been taught to segregate readings (Shakespeare vs. Stephen King) but they have not been taught to understand where these differences come from. What's the point in performing an action if you never understand why you are doing it, anyway?

Trimbur proposes a revised notion of consensus that focuses more on how students use consensus to open gaps in conversation and less on how students achieve consensus. He wants to see consensus not as a reconciliation but as a desire of humans to live and work together regardless of differences. In order to do this, he feels that students should be organized non-hierarchically so that all discursive roles are available to all participants. This will create what Trimbur calls a "heterogeneity without hierarchy." In layman's terms, students should not be forced to conform together, but they should be allowed to foster a learning environment where they reach understanding from each student's equal participation.

Overall, I liked reading Trimbur's critique of the two dominate views of collaborative learning. It got a little confusing and somewhat dense in some parts, but I think I understood the author's main idea. This article helped me to put what we have already learned about different theorists, like Dewey and Bruffee, into perspective. I think Trimbur brings up a very good point when he emphasizes the importance of achieving collaboration without imposing a hierarchy. This is something that I feel happens a lot in different classroom environments. Stronger students sometimes dominate conversation with their thoughts and ideas. However, I'm not so sure that these hierarchical rankings can - or should- be avoided. Hierarchies occur naturally in any group situation and often foster more competitive thinking and greater contribution from those who may not always participate. Trimbur believes that these "bottom" individuals become complacent when they do not hold great positions of power, "going with the flow" and not speaking their own minds; but I will argue that this situation does not cause people to lose their opinions. I believe that this type of environment only encourages "distant" individuals to work harder to change their hierarchical standings. If students are generally more complacent, they will learn to change their ideologies or fall behind. It's a dog-eat-dog world and students should not be 'babied' in the classroom. If you can't hack it, too bad for you- that's the ugly truth of life.