Kenneth Bruffee's "Collaborative Learning and Conversation of Mankind"

Collaborative learning is a topic that can be debated about in terms of its effectiveness in the learning and working environments. Working with peers, whether they match one's intellectual level or not, can be a very valid and helpful tool in receiving advice, feed-back, and support on a particular project. Collaborative learning does not strive to change the content of what students learn nor dumb down the content, rather, collaborative learning aims at setting up a new social context in which students can learn. Peer criticism, or work done in small student groups, can be extremely helpful in creating a suitable work environment for students who are not inclined towards the traditional classroom setting. The way in which students converse about given material determines how they will think and how they will write. Working with peers also encourages the students to get more emotionally involved, more focused, and comfortable. Once all of these are achieved, it is easy to get right to work.

Knowledge is made through thought, conversation, reading, writing, and social interaction. Knowledge can be considered one's personal motivation to learn, question, and think. Conversations and thought begin within the individual and slowly externalize themselves through various conventions. For instance, when assigned an essay, there are many steps that an individual takes, sometimes subconsciously, when sorting out his or her knowledge on the subject. The day that the professor assigns the essay, students may have thoughts running through their heads regarding what they want to write about. This is reflective thought, more or less, and can be externalized by being written on paper in the form of an outline or talked through with peers by way of collaborative learning practices. The knowledge of the student will be ultimately expressed in the written essay. Knowledge can also be learned and expressed through social interaction. By sharing experiences with other people, learning side by side, or even by simply having conversations, knowledge is spread through direct contact with peers.

I do not think that is is necessary for alike intellectuals to converse exclusively when it comes to peer criticism and the furthering of knowledge. I definitely think normal discourse and peer criticism with like intellectuals is helpful, not completely necessary, but very helpful when it comes to seeking advice on a piece that is quite focused in its subject. In other words, I believe that more likely than not, it turns out to be useful and productive to partake in conversations with a group of knowledgeable peers. Once a set of conventions are set among a group of people, the group can just cut to the chase and get right down to work. Personally, I find it frustrating sometimes in class when working with others is practically forced upon the students, especially with no choice among who one wants to work with. It is refreshing to work with someone in a similar field and with someone who possesses the same level of motivation as me in that field. Overall, I think peer criticism is a valid option in terms of learning because not only does it help individuals learn more about the topic about which they're studying, but it enables individuals to come away with valuable social skills that can be used in greater communities. In this way, knowledge can be attained through the course material, and through the personal experiences of the peers who are working in a collaborative manner.