Threshold Concepts in Literary Studies

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal Pub Date : 2019-03-29 DOI:10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.2
Paul T. Corrigan
{"title":"Threshold Concepts in Literary Studies","authors":"Paul T. Corrigan","doi":"10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay proposes a series of “threshold concepts” for literary studies: text, meaning, context, form, and reading. Each term carries both commonsense understandings and disciplinary understandings, which differ from each other drastically. The disciplinary understandings entail far “more” than the commonsense ones. Unless such differences are named and explained clearly, unacknowledged commonsense understandings may hinder students ability to learn equally unacknowledged disciplinary understandings. The naming and describing of such contrasting sets of understandings and of the differences between them is an act of disciplinary introspection—a scholarly and pedagogical act vital for understanding and teaching any complex body of knowledge. In addition to proposing threshold concepts for literary studies specifically, then, this essay encourages and offers a model for teacher-scholars in any discipline to undertake the same disciplinary work.","PeriodicalId":44633,"journal":{"name":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20343/TEACHLEARNINQU.7.1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This essay proposes a series of “threshold concepts” for literary studies: text, meaning, context, form, and reading. Each term carries both commonsense understandings and disciplinary understandings, which differ from each other drastically. The disciplinary understandings entail far “more” than the commonsense ones. Unless such differences are named and explained clearly, unacknowledged commonsense understandings may hinder students ability to learn equally unacknowledged disciplinary understandings. The naming and describing of such contrasting sets of understandings and of the differences between them is an act of disciplinary introspection—a scholarly and pedagogical act vital for understanding and teaching any complex body of knowledge. In addition to proposing threshold concepts for literary studies specifically, then, this essay encourages and offers a model for teacher-scholars in any discipline to undertake the same disciplinary work.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
文学研究中的门槛概念
本文提出了一系列文学研究的“门槛概念”:文本、意义、语境、形式和阅读。每一个术语都有常识性的理解和学科性的理解,它们之间有着巨大的差异。学科上的理解比常识上的理解要“多得多”。除非这些差异被命名并解释清楚,否则未被承认的常识性理解可能会阻碍学生学习同样未被承认学科理解的能力。命名和描述这些截然不同的理解以及它们之间的差异是一种学科内省行为——这是一种学术和教学行为,对理解和教授任何复杂的知识体系至关重要。除了具体提出文学研究的门槛概念外,本文还鼓励并为任何学科的教师学者从事同样的学科工作提供了一个模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal
Teaching & Learning Inquiry-The ISSOTL Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
30.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: SoTL as its Own Kind of Inquiry Experiences with Supporting Teachers with Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at a Research-Intensive University: Lessons Learned Defining Active Learning: A Restricted Systemic Review Using Scenarios to Explore the Complexity of Student-Faculty Partnership Challenges of Shaping Student Study Strategies for Success: Replication and Extension
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1