PAB 3: Epistemological Alignment
Meyer, Jan H.F. and Ray Land. “Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning.” Higher Education 49, (2005), pp. 373–388.
Within this article, Meyer and Land delve more deeply into their concept of threshold concepts, which encapsulates the understanding of disciplinary knowledge and its dissemination to students. As the authors explain, threshold concepts are “‘conceptual gateways’ or ‘portals’ that lead to a previously
https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/educational-futures-rethinking-theory-and-practice/threshold-concepts-and-transformational-learning/
inaccessible, and initially perhaps ‘troublesome,’ way of thinking about something” (373). These gateways must be transformative, irreversible, and integrative. By troublesome, the authors refer to knowledge that is difficult to grasp for a variety of reasons. In regards to its reception, the authors note that professionals in other disciplines see threshold concepts as “pedagogically fertile” (374). They can lead to expanded language and sense of self, which can be seen via liminality, or the space/time upon which social rituals are conducted. Because of the daunting nature of liminality, some students may resort to mimicry. However, having a better understanding of this difficult transformation can aid in understanding ‘stuck places’ and epistemological obstacles, thus proving troublesome knowledge beneficial. A caveat the authors note towards scaffolding a threshold concept is to avoid utilizing an overly simplistic version or a ‘naive version,’ as this may lead to a false proxy and encourage mimicry. Overall, the authors seek further studies across disciplines with the hope that their new framework will help aid in curriculum design. In turn, this may help teachers address pre-liminal variation, or variation in students’ ‘tacit’ knowledge of concepts, including locating “troublesomeness and ‘stuck places’ for their students” (386). Ultimately, the authors hope threshold concepts will become a threshold concept.
This source is useful in helping me understand the basic foundation of Wardle and Downs’ argument for WAW, as their entire argument hinges on the idea that composition has disciplinary knowledge that needs to be shared with students. This source was cited in Wardle and Downs, which Wardle cites in “Mutt Genres,” proving that this article is like a companion piece. The information within this article is reliable due to previous citation. The authors claim that this article is an expansion on their previous work, implying that their concept has been tested; however, there is still objectivity throughout this article. The goal is to help teachers help their students understand the various disciplinary knowledge students are likely to gain throughout their university/college schooling.
This source is very helpful to me, especially epistemologically. As I develop more as a composition scholar and educator, I increasingly understand how much knowledge there is in the composition field and how much students would greatly benefit from having, at least some, of this knowledge. I also learned more about how the students’ identities play into their learning, something I hadn’t thought about before. This explains a great deal about how and why some students understand certain concepts more readily than others. There is certainly more to teaching composition than just pedagogy; having a strong theoretical framework is a must. This reminds me of the question Phelps revisits in her article, “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition”: “can–or should–theory “discipline” practice?” Or is the reverse true? ( 864). I believe they aid each other.
Wardle, Elizabeth. ““Mutt Genres” and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the University?” CCC, Vol. 60, No. 4 (June 2009), pp. 765-789.
Within this article, Wardle challenges the general assumptions regarding the goals of FYC, which involves teaching students to write for all the genres of the university. In order to challenge this assertion, Wardle conducted a study on the second semester FYCs at a large midwestern university composition program. What she discovered validated the criticism levied against general skills writing classes proposed by genre and activity theorists over the years. Wardle argues that reframing the goals of FYC from teaching students to write to teaching them about writing would better benefit students. Quoting Freedman, Wardle asserts, “FYC courses are different in “substance . . . epistemological assumptions . . .and ideological context” from all the other courses for which they purport to prepare students to write” (766). There are many reasons why the goals of FYC have remained consistent, such as from its inception, English was created to teach students how to write, and even the lack of strong, convincing theoretical critiques. Wardle reviews the typical writing genres, such as the narrative, argument, and reflection, calling these “mutt genres;”these seek to mimic the genres in other activity systems, but have vague or contradictory purposes and/or audiences. These “mutt genres” also tend to morph to create genres exclusive to FYCs. Even when linking FYCs to specific disciplines, problems arise as instructors are typically outsiders in those disciplines. Wardle offers two resolutions: 1) change the content so that the FYCs serve as boundary objects, bridging various disciplinary genres with instructors becoming more knowledgeable about genres throughout the university or 2) “lay such goals to rest” (783). Shift focus from teaching students to write, giving up the “myth of transience” (784). She suggests a new kind of course, like writing about writing, with writing being treated as the subject matter, noting without a general skills writing focus, other departments assume more responsibility for their own specific academic writing needs.
This source was very useful in learning more about where FYCs should be headed, in terms of creating more effective and realistic goals for these courses. Like the Meyer and Land article, this article seeks to offer more effective direction for pedagogy and course design. To be specific, Wardle seeks to provide a strong theoretical critique to convince compositionists for the necessity of change in the discipline. Wardle is an expert in the composition field, providing the needed ethos for this topic, rendering the article both reliable and objective.
This article is definitely helpful as I continue formulating my understanding of composition and its purpose in the university. Like many scholars, Wardle and Fraizer included, I don’t see how one or two FYCs can imbue students with all of the writing skills needed to write throughout the university and beyond. This goal is unrealistic and hinders the development of the discipline. I do, however, believe that composition itself should be taught as its own content within FYCs as teaching the “mutt genres” doesn’t actually help students develop as writers, like writing about writing could. The source adds credence to my developing epistemological alignment.
Work Cited
Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.” College English, Vol. 53, No.8 (Dec., 1991), pp. 863-885.