Havruta: What Do We Know and What Can We Hope to Learn from Studying in Havruta?

Chapter

Abstract

Havruta learning or paired study is a traditional mode of Jewish text study. The term itself captures two simultaneous learning activities in which the Havruta partners engage: the study of a text and learning with a partner. Confined in the past to traditional yeshivot and limited to the study of Talmud, Havruta learning has recently made its way into a variety of professional and lay learning contexts that reflect new social realities in the world of Jewish learning. However, despite its long history and its recent growing popularity, Havruta learning has received little scholarly attention. This chapter begins by mapping out the current state of Havruta learning in relation to variables such as its structural, situational, and organizational elements. It then presents a review of the research on Havruta learning, and concludes with a suggested research agenda.

References

  1. Blum Kolka, Sh., Blondeim, M., & Hacohen, G. (2008). Traditions of disagreements – from argumentative conversations about talmud texts to political discourse in the media. In M. Neiger, M. Blondeim, & T. Libes (Eds.), Coverage as story: perspectives on discourse in Israeli media. In honor of Itzhak Roeh (pp. 245–274). Jerusalem: Magness Press (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  2. Brawer, D. (2002). Havruta and Talmud Study: Peer interaction in critical thinking. London: University of London.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, S. & Malkus, M. (2007). Havruta as a form of cooperative learning. Journal of Jewish Education, 73(3), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Coates, J. (1997). Women’s friendship, women’s talk. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp. 245–262). London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork, strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Earthman, E. A. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers’ processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(4), 351–384.Google Scholar
  8. Feiman-Nemser, Sh. (2006). Beit midrash for teachers: An experiment in teacher preparation. Journal of Jewish Education, 72, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of the self and of morality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Halbertal, M. & Hartman Halbertal, T. (1998). The yeshivah. In A. O. Rorty (Ed.), Philosophers on education: New historical perspectives (pp. 458–469). New York: Routledge Stone.Google Scholar
  11. Holzer, E. (2006). What connects “good” teaching, text study and Havruta learning? A conceptual argument. Journal of Jewish Education, 72, 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holzer, E. (2009). “Either a Havruta partner of death” A critical view on the interpersonal dimensions of Havruta learning. The Journal of Jewish Education, 75, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kent, O. (2006). Interactive text study: A case of Havruta learning. Journal of Jewish Education, 72, 205–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kent, O. (2008). Interactive Text Study and the Co-Construction of Meaning: Havruta in the DeLeT Beit Midrash. Ph.d dissertation submitted at the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education. Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  15. Newberg, A. (2005). Hitchabrut or connecting – liberal houses of study in Israel as political and spiritual expression. Israel Studies Forum, 20(2), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Raider-Roth, M. & Holzer, E. (2009). Learning to be present: How Havruta learning can activate teachers’ relationships to self, other and text. The Journal of Jewish Education, 75(3), 216–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ratzersdorfer Rosen, G. (2003). Empathy and aggression in Torah study: Analysis of a Talmudic description of Havruta learning. In J. Sacks & S. Handelman (Eds.), Wisdom from all my teachers (pp. 249–263). Jerusalem, New York: Urim.Google Scholar
  18. Schwarz, B. B. (In press). Students’ Havruta learning in Lituanian Yeshivot: The case of recurrent learning. In E. Etkes, T. Elor, M. Hed, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Education and religion: Between tradition and innovation. Jerusalem: Magness Press (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  19. Segal, A. (2003). Havruta study: History benefits and enhancements. Jerusalem: ATID.Google Scholar
  20. Sharan, S (Ed.) (1994). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sheldon, A. (1992). “Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self-assertion and how young girls meet them”. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 38(1), 95–117.Google Scholar
  22. Sheldon, A. (1997). Talking power: Girls, gender enculturation and discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and Discourse (pp. 225–244). London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  23. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Stampfer, S. (1995). HaYeshivah haLita’it beHithavutah. Jerusalem: Shazar (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  25. Tedmon, S. (1991). Collaborative acts of literacy in traditional Jewish community. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  26. Tishbi, Y. (1979). Yeshivot Lita. In Y. Praver, Y. Gutman (Eds.), Hebrew encyclopedia (Vol. 17, p. 689). Jerusalem: Society for encyclopedia Pub (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  27. Yair, G., Sagiv, T., Shimborsky, Sh., Akrai, S., & Lichtman, M. (2006). The impact of learning communities and open Batei Midrash in Israel. http://www.avi-chai.org (Hebrew).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bar Ilan UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Brandeis UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations