Knowledge.

To answer the question posed to us in the prompt:

Yes, knowing absolutely requires contact with other intellect. To learn you must experience things. How will you know if a stove is hot unless you touch it? I suppose that you could know something by reading it in a book. But what if you’re reading a book about how the earth is at the center of the solar system? You’re wrong if you believe what the book is telling you. It would take someone to tell you (either via a conversation or through a book) that you’re wrong. You truly wouldn’t know until this happens.

I like what Bruffee has to say about peer editing. I feel like I learn more from this than just simply reading a teacher’s comments on my essay about what’s wrong with it. Not only do I learn what’s wrong with my paper, I also learn how to edit other people’s work and my own. One might think that peer editing is flawed because peers tend to be more laid back when compared to teachers. I don’t think this is true. I tend to try just as hard because I do not want to make a fool out of myself. It can definitely be a powerful tool in the collaborative learning belt.

Collaborative learning reminds me a lot of what we’re talking about in my speech com class right now. We’re learning about small group communication right now which is basically the same. We learned in class that this type of communication offers a high level of both verbal and nonverbal communication and immediate feedback. This is really great when trying to solve a problem like a diagnosis like Bruffee mentions in his essay. The immediate feedback and high level of communication can lead to a better solution or more knowledge. It seems ideal for almost every situation we find ourselves. What movie do you guys want to see? What disease does this patient have? How should we fundraise for our group?