mankind's conversation

Summary:
This article is a self-described musing on the issue of collaborative learning. The author (Kenneth A. Bruffee) reminds the reader that this is not a "recipe" for good collaborative learning, but rather a host of reasons that any teacher could and should try collaborative learning.
The first way that Bruffee attempts to get everyone on the collaborative learning bandwagon is to trace its history in English and American school systems. He sites the works of Edwin Mason and M.L.J. Abercrombie as establishing the validity of the "educational value" of several "collaborative forms".
The reasons for the rise of collaborative learning in America had to do with the vast influx of diverse learners which descended on campuses in the 1970's. Teachers used organized collaboration and peer groups to bring everyone to the same lever.
Bruffee goes on to tell why collaborative learning is still important. The first reason he gives is that thought, writing, and discourse are all related and function in the same way so that the more they are interconnected, the better the learner does at each task separately. Another important point is of knowledge communities and how our understanding of normal discourse can be a good starting point to entering those communities. Later in the article, Bruffe charges instructors as being the person responsible for inducting students through the gate of normal discourse.
There are additional sections on how collaboration helps the view of knowledge. One of the more interesting points is that of abnormal discourse and how this fresh approach to knowledge furthers the learning of any community.

Response:
I'm not exactly sure that I understand the point of this article, other than to remind people that it is important to incorporate group situations and opportunities into our lessons to encourage learning. I suppose that this is an important reminder, but it seems that these type of situations usually come about better on their own than through any lesson.
I have been involved in many group projects over the years and I have never felt I benefited from them at all. There are usually a few things that can come out of these forced collaboration. Sometimes one person does all the work; this happens either because the person wants to do all the work because they are controlling or because the other students don't care to do the work. Either way, nobody really learns any more than they would have through individual work. The other situation that I have also seen and been involved in is when everyone in the group is involved and interested. There is nothing wrong with this, but I don't really see how anyone learns anything more than they would have on their own and the scheduling conflicts that arise are more of a hindrance than anything else.
I do believe that entering "the conversation of mankind" helps us to communicate and think in more diverse and stratified ways. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this can be structured into a lesson plan; I think it simply has to happen from discussion.