Conversation and Convention
In Kenneth Bruffee’s Peer Tutoring and the “Conversation of Mankind,” Bruffee makes the case for inclusion of peer tutoring in the educational system. He begins by discussing the origins of peer tutoring, specifically the reasons why it emerged, and furthers his by weaving in both its processes and benefits. Bruffee says that peer tutoring is grounded in practice, and in that practice, is an alternative to the normal classroom setting. He furthers this statement by saying that while the idea of peer tutoring is often glossed over, it can be a highly beneficial to students. Bruffee asserts that through the process of peer tutoring, “Teachers […] reach students by organizing them to teach each other.”

Bruffee asks us to understand peer tutoring as a form of collaborative learning, and he supports this idea very well. He sets up his argument by discussing the origin of human conversation and thought. Then, he expands upon this idea by relating conversation and thought, saying that thought (“reflective thought,” to be more specific) is simply another means of conversation. In Bruffee’s words, “Reflective thought is public or social conversation internalized.” He says that reflective thought and social conversation are related organically and formally, and thus, functionally. They work in much the same manner.

Consequently, many of the forms we expect in conversation are similar to those we find apparent in our thoughts. Bruffee ventures further into this subject, saying that thought is a “social artifact” (“a made thing”), an idea which he supports by later relating the theories of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn notes that, “To say that knowledge is indeterminate is to say that there is no fixed […] point of reference against which we can measure truth. If there is no such referent, then knowledge must be a made thing.” In response, Bruffee muses, “Reflective thinking is something we learn to do, and we learn to do it from and with other people.” In other words, he believes that all knowledge is collaborative.

This idea transitions well into the next area that Bruffee discussions, that of conversation and its importance in writing. Bruffee believes that conversation is an essential part of both writing and peer tutoring. He says that, “The first step […] to learning to think better [is] to learn to converse better,” and to keep a certain social context within our academic communities. Bruffee stresses that, “We must understand how knowledge is generated and maintained by communities of […] peers.” He says we define what we want or need to write by the people in our community, and thus peer tutors must encourage the same sort of speaking as they do writing. Good conversation facilitates good writing.

Bruffee notes that, “If thought is internalized conversation, then writing is internalized conversation re-externalized.” He says that ideas do not necessarily have to emerge in the presence of other people. They can find their basis in your own mind. However, since writing, as Bruffee argues, is essentially internal conversation, it still originates from the ability to carry on that same conversation. Since this is the case, peer tutors and teachers alike must take the opportunity to constantly engage students in conversation during the writing process, for reasons already discussed.

Bruffee states that peer tutoring is necessary to education for two main reasons, both stemming from the idea of collaborative learning. The first is that peer tutoring gives students a certain kind of social context for them to develop their ideas. It allows students the opportunity in which to practice their academic discourse. It, “Makes students […] aware that writing is a social artifact.” The second reason, as Bruffee sees it, is that peer tutoring prepares students for the kind of writing they will one day be expected to use at their jobs. In other words, it gives students the chance to work on their “normal discourse.” In this case, normal discourse is defined as conversation within a group of experienced peers. Peer tutoring is a way to teach that necessary discourse (within fields) to students. Bruffee says that, “Not to have mastered the normal discourse of discipline […] is not to be knowledgeable in that discipline.”

He then addresses the issue that many people find as the fault of peer tutoring, as well as in any form of collaborative learning: that of the blind leading the blind. Bruffee deal with this concern by saying that, “by working together–pooling their resources—they [the students] are likely to be able to master it if their conversation is structures indirectly by the task or problem that a member of that community […] provides.” Students are guided by the requirements of the task as well as the principles of academic discourse, brought to the conversation by tutee and tutor, respectively. Therefore, the most important thing that students can do during a peering tutoring session is talk. Bruffee again deems conversation important by tying it into the normal classroom experience, saying that most teachers see “class discussion” as an efficient means of teaching.

Here, Bruffee again addresses the idea of collaborative knowledge inside a community, whether it be in the classroom and in the professional world. He says that if we accept the idea of collaborative learning as worthwhile, we must agree that, “Learning is not assimilating information and improving our mental eyesight. Learning is an activity in which people work collaboratively to create knowledge among themselves by socially justifying beliefs.” He says that knowledge is the result of a constant interaction with peers. This interaction helps “maintain community growth and coherence,” and hopefully “promotes a sort of resocialization.” Bruffee concludes by saying that all of his points run under the assumption that the peer tutor has had training in the field. Tutoring must necessarily be a segment of their development.

I think Bruffee makes many important points, especially with the idea of conversation being important to peer tutoring. Not only does it set the mood for the session by establishing a sense of comfort between the tutor and tutee, which I’ve seen in my observations, it allows for the negotiation of goals. It gives students the freedom to express concerns about their writing in their own language, which eventually helps them transition into a new language: that of academic discourse. Peer tutoring allows for growth and development in a less structured and pressured way. The idea of students learning more easily from each other than through teachers rings true. In peer tutoring, students are equals, and that comfort goes a long way in the thought process.

Bruffee himself takes this stance. He finds many opportunities to quote fellow writers, and I think this in itself supports his theory of the value of collaborative learning. It’s sometimes necessary to pool resources in order to make any sort of conclusion. Often, our own thoughts are not enough to go on. Drawing ideas from others within a particular field, and discussing these ideas, can be a very satisfying experience. It can lead the development of yet more ideas, and this is something we strive for in any environment. Overall, I support Bruffee’s theory that peer tutoring can not only enrich the learning process, but is a necessary part of it. I’ve seen it at work, and because of that, I’d count it as one of, if not the, most important step. While I believe that having options is vital to one’s education, in the case of the conventional classroom versus peer tutoring, I think the alternative should be the norm.