Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind" response

Many of the points that Kenneth tries to make in this article are very self evident. On page 636, he draws on "ten years or research" of select medical students, and learns that people learn better when they are in a small group. Essentially, that two heads are better than one. He then goes into a more elaborate line of reasoning, saying that human beings are defined by conversation. Rational thought, by his standard, are conversations with yourself, and how you converse with your peers dictates how you think when you are by yourself.

I have an issue with that. I think that the way one thinks privatley would, more often than not, determine the medium to which they hold a conversation with their peers.

He finally begins coming to a conclusion around page 641, where he begins to tie his previous thoughts back into the implication on Education. He thinks that writing is "internalized conversation re-externalized". Pretty much, what you think, you write. I would hope that you wouldn't write something without thinking about it first, but that's just me. He then goes on to say that the way that we talk "determines...the way they will write"

Here I have another issue. He is assuming that Articulate speakers are great writers and thinkers. One can be a great public speaker and have nothing at all to contribute to the literary world.