Myers...

        Greg Myers is questioning the political nature of two teaching methods in particular: collaborative learning and case assignments doting authenticity.  To study these issues more effectively, he compares the commentary on these methods from writers of two different times, Sterling Andrus Leonard (1915 - 1930) and Peter Elbow & Kenneth Bruffee (c. 1980’s), to identify and signify the social context of such methods from a historical, not contemporary, standpoint and how writer reformers like Elbow & Bruffee fail to concede the historical values of these two methods.  His analysis explores the meaning of these terms, consensus, reality, and reform familiar in teaching communities.

        Myers argues that Leonard’s rendering of the consensus ideal is in fact a part of an ideology - a thought process created by the individual that justifies the social and economical injustices in society - that does not change but instead perpetuate an illusory state of change sponsored by that oppressive system.  Schools, particularly, help establish these ideologies which are usually found within hierarchical constructs of society (striving for excellence like perfect academic, business careers, etc.)  The teacher in a collaborative learning environment does not relinquish his or her authority over the class; instead, he or she just reinvents it in the form of the class: “The danger is that the teacher has merely embodied his or her authority in the more effective guise of class consensus” (159).

        According to Myers, the conflict of language among certain groups in Leonard’s consensus environment gets overlooked because the formal instruction of these texts (grammar and etiquette) doesn’t appeal or cater to other dialects indicative of “the real world”.  More importantly, such conflicts that get absorbed are accompanied with much larger social conflicts (race, class, etc.) resulting in a conflation of racial identities, filial backgrounds, and religious origin.

        Myers also criticizes Leonard’s outlook on the ideal of reality – for Leonard, reality is retrieved through senses and adaptation while for Marxists the real world can’t be captured because like the human condition it stays in constant flux.  Myers’ advocates how details of reality shape and develop our growth as individuals as opposed to Leonard’s approach teaches how to acquire solely the details so that individuals can assimilate in “the world of work and community responsibility” (162); however, such an approach make those individuals merely slaves to the system despite his criticism against traditional teaching for governments and businesses.

        Myer’s is critical of Leonard’s system of reform because he’s setting out traditional teachers as the enemy – a contentious position since he himself is considered to exude the same authoritative stance over students just like those he’s criticizing.  Just as Myers mentions about Leonard’s position regarding collaborative learning, his personal authority is disseminated and disguised by the participation of the students.

        Elbow would advocate authentic voice is achieved within the self and that this writing power comes from breaking down conventions that stifle authentic voice and wields power over the consensus.  Despite, however, that Elbow notes voice as a symbol of individuality over many, it is actually of an ideological nature created by many operating with the oppressive system.  For example, insight and inspiration gleaned from academic discourse communities aids a burgeoning voice.  Technically, that voice is not original but an amalgam of many voices.

        Bruffee suggests that rather than tracking an original voice within the writer that instead such a voice is found from the response to writer cues in the text from readers whose efforts in deciphering the text’s language would mark the work as original – typically, through a formalized private language.  The “family story” exercise where students try to understand what the writer is saying is an example given by Myers.  Bruffee would say writing is a collective effort, but there’s no opportunity for feedback.

        In addition to that, there is a fundamental difference in philosophy between Leonard and Bruffee in the suggested outcome of collaborative learning.  Rather like Leonard acknowledges a sense of friction among those of different dialects whose conflicts tend to usher in much larger issues (race, family, religion, etc.), Bruffee believes that in achieving the same educational goal, such hostilities should dissolve.  What makes Bruffee idealism falter, according to Myers, is the assumption that students are ignorant to the reality of social differences between others (race, family, religion, etc.)   An assumption that reveals a truism, according to Myers, that resources of knowledge aren’t equally distributed and by assuming otherwise “perpetuate[s] the provision of different kinds of knowledge for the rich and the poor” (167).

        In terms of reform, Myers states that both he & Elbow write discourses in social process; however, Elbow ignores these processes (166).  Bruffee presents a better plan to reform such practices by putting teachers and students within a social context, but tends to view the resistance as a matter of habit and not of ideology (168).