Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug
Downs. “Reflecting Back and Looking Forward: Revisiting Teaching about Writing,
Righting Misconceptions Five Years On.” Composition
Forum 27 (Spring 2013).
Wardle & Downs revisit their
2007 article to “clarify,” reply to comments and critiques, and reconsider
their original argument. In 2007, they recognize
they were inexperienced and didn’t have the same language frames as they do
today. They wrote how just a few composition courses could not “teach students
to write” and that focus should be on teaching “about” writing and learning how
discovery could be adapted (transferred) to new writing situations. They revise
this in 2013 to use Jan Meyer and Ray Lands’ “threshold concepts” to “better
name” learning transfer knowledge and conceptions. Threshold concepts “can be
considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way
of thinking about something” (3). They see “situatedness” as a threshold
concept and explain there is “no universal rule for how to write” and ask the questions
“what are our field’s threshold concepts, and where and when (and how) should
they be taught?”
They received criticism
after their 2007 article and note in their current article that they had “great
certainty” in writing “this pedagogy ‘cannot be taught by someone not trained
in writing studies’” (574). Six years difference has brought new awareness and
less “tone” in that they found their “ensuing experience to disprove our own
claim” and discovered that it isn’t necessary to have graduate work in rhetoric
and composition to successfully teach writing, but recognize that familiarity
with genres and conventions in other disciplines can “bring an abundance of
expertise to the table.” Those unfamiliar with writing theory need to be interested
and willing to read and learn, but that “varied background” can add “depth and
richness” to a writing program.
Finally, they provide examples
of ways “writing about writing” have been adopted and stress that “once of the
direst predictions of critics” did not manifest itself to be true – students
are not bored with the content. On the contrary, “courses
about writing seem better able to create genuine rhetorical situations.”
Finally, they call on continued research and improved writing programs,
utilizing the rich content from the writing studies field.
I was surprised to see an updated article just published by
Wardle & Downs, as I was using their original article in my research. In
six years, it is evident that “real life” tempered their “absoluteness,” but
did not diminish their convictions. It
was beneficial to see them draw in new language to help clarify their earlier statement.
What I found most interesting in this article was their emphasis on Meyer and
Land’s disciplinary threshold concepts. ACRL
references “threshold concepts” in their new plans for updating Information
Literacy Standards. My concern is that while Wardle & Downs base their
inclusion of the concept clearly within the literature of the discipline and
point to Meyer and Land for additional reference, that ACRL will miss yet
another opportunity to draw from theory to inform information literacy study
and instead just adopt “terms” without fully aligning them with the rhetorical
theory from which they derive.
Referenced article:
Downs, Douglas, and Elizabeth
Wardle. “Teaching about Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning ‘First-Year
Composition’ as ‘Introduction to Writing Studies.’” CCC 58.4 (2007): 552-584.
