Lunsford has a cautious attitude towards writing centers because she feels there are many inherent problems with collaboration. These problems are that collaboration breaks away from tradition hierarchies (teachers and students) and individualized thinking; “the rigid hierarchy of teacher- centered classrooms is replicated in the tutor-centered writing center in which the tutor is still the seat of all authority but simply pretending it isn’t so” (50). This view is very different from Bruffee’s in which he says that everyone brings something to the table. The students bring their knowledge of the assignment and the tutors bring sensitivity and knowledge of writing. However, both Lunsford and Bruffee focus on knowledge as socially based. Lunsford defines her ideal writing center as one in which knowledge is formed socially and students think critically beyond the confines of the paper. I feel as though if Lunsford does believe this type of collaboration can exist, that would make her earlier statement hypocritical. I think that people do think individually, but they can also think collaboratively in a democratic and productive way. Isn't that essential what a class is?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Stephanie, aren't you confused by Lunsford? I am. I can't tell what she's trying to say about the hierarchies in the writing center when the tutor "pretends" not to be in a position of authority but really is. It takes away from the legitimacy of having a peer tutoring session, because essentially we are peers and really are on similar levels, so no one has too much of a leg up in that situation. I don't know where she gets that idea, but otherwise she seems to be a pretty strong advocate of collaborative learning. Who knows!
ReplyDeleteI think I was more confused by Bruffee! They were both very wordy, but yes, Lunsford seemed to like to talk about different versions of the same thing (writing centers). She was just so against writing centers in the beginning and she did de-legitimize them. Then at the end of her article she thought they would be really beneficial. She flip flopped a lot.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see. You're talking about page 50 in Sourcebook:
ReplyDelete"...collaboration can also be used to reproduce the status quo; the rigid hierarchy of teacher-centered classrooms is replicated in the tutor-centered writing center in which the tutor is still the seat of all authority but is simply pretending it isn't so."
Okay, so let's think of the collaborative situation this way:
You've got a student. She's got a 79 on a paper. She wants an 85. (Remember our example from class.) So you tell her how to do that. You give her tips about transitions. You tell her that the paragraph on page 3 needs focus and a sentence that explains its relationship to the thesis.
Are these things you're telling the student true? Yes.
Are you collaborating with the student. Yes, in a way.
However, this particular collaboration is hierarchical. You, as tutor, are in control because you're not making knowledge with the student. Instead, you are imparting existing knowledge (about transitions and paragraph coherence).
As we've said in class, hierarchical collaboration can be useful at times. As Lunsford argues, however, such collaboration comes with a risk, and that risk involves merely replicating and reinforcing status quo notions about essay design and school-based writing (e.g., it's boring, every paragraph has to relate specifically to the thesis, etc. etc,)
The real power of collaboration comes through the creation of the new, and the new comes into being when two or more people are working dialogically rather than hierarchically.
That makes it much clearer!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete