Nicole Hobble
Rough Draft #3
November 30, 2011
Yeah, i’m not completely sure about this, but I’m anxious to see the feedback….
If I’ve learned anything over the duration of the quarter, it’s probably my lack of knowledge towards the idea of being direct. In order to really grasp a concept of an author, and express your understanding of their ideas, you have to write in the most direct form. My take on this whole, “threshold concept,” is that it’s supposed to help you open up a new way of thinking about something. And in my case, it’s always been my inability to be truly direct. I feel like anytime I would write a paper, we would be instructed to come right out with things, instead of leaving your statements “open ended.” It wasn’t until I was in the middle of writing a paper in Pol. S. 201 that I realized that I wasn’t even following the directions. I think that this is definitely an important concept to understand, not just for me, but also for present and future students.
It isn’t a completely difficult concept to grasp when writing in college, but this is an interesting threshold concept, because it’s something universal that all students learn. I encountered difficulty in this area because of my lack of understanding the authors and their material. That probably sounds pretty bazaar considering a majority of the time, you’re expected to read the material in order to actually succeed in the class. I’m not saying that I didn’t read the material. In all honesty, the material assigned was pretty lengthy, drawn out, and flat out boring. I wasn’t expecting everything to be all fun and games, but if I at least was interested in the subject, then maybe I would be able to appreciate the readings more. This doesn’t create a complete image of what my future in these types of political science classes, but I’m certainly expecting the same tendencies. This concept, in my opinion can lead you in many directions such as the authors “true” purpose or ideas, and a more clear understanding of what they really meant instead of assuming what they could’ve meant.
The concept of being “direct” is a key gateway into writing an effective paper in political science. You, as the writer, not only have to show your understanding of the subject or author, but the reader has to understand just as you do or what you’re trying to write. The idea of a paper is to show your knowledge of the material, not to make your writing sound fancy, or persuasive. Over the course of my time in our English class I’ve been able to critique several pieces of writing. This has helped me see my work in a different way as well. A vital part of becoming a better writer is taking criticism and improving your work. I’ve learned that by using others critique, I’m really learning. Without that, you really can never get any better. While I was able to review my peer’s work, I noticed that I wasn’t the only one who struggled with the concept of being direct. While it was comforting to know that others were in the same boat, it also helped me to choose what threshold that I would focus on. I wanted to choose something that I knew not everyone understood as well as future students, because I know that college writing is completely different from high school. I wanted a threshold that I could explain from my understanding. I think that shows that I’ve clearly learned a key concept when it comes to college writing and the link to political science.
A big part of going to college is adapting to the transition from high school. Personally, I wouldn’t say it was that huge of a difference. It’s just the way you sign up for classes, and all these new concepts are thrown at you. It’s like all of a sudden we’re been told to write in a completely different form than we have been for the past 5 or 6 years. It wasn’t until I actually wrote my first official college paper, that I got honest feedback on my work. Back in high school you always got the cliché “Good,” or “Needs a little more work.” It was as if they hadn’t even taken the time to actually read my paper. Now, I would have to admit that I’m just as guilty as anything other student when it came to that. I wasn’t about giving them sufficient critique, but more of getting it over with. The problem with that is that you never really get anywhere and teaches you that you don’t really have to make an effort when it came to writing papers. It was just sort of a “No one really reads it, so why should I put effort into it,” type of mentality.
That idea, leads me to my next point; if you don’t care about your work, you won’t be successful. I think too many people kind of coast on the bare minimum. I had a somewhat similar attitude, until I later learned; no effort resulted in failure. When it comes to this type of threshold concept, you have to understand that directions are everything. When a prompt or a professor instructs you to be direct, be direct. You need to be clear with your words and your thoughts. To me, being direct is laying out all thoughts, without being the slightest open ended. With that, you leave your reader confused and implying things about your subject or ideas. This portal is one that needs to be understood, because to me, it’s vital.
For instance, one of the examples that I would use is our first paper that we wrote in Political Science 201. I kind of procrastinated a bit, but that’s beside the point. When it actually came down to writing the paper and revising it was a challenge. I didn’t actually bring my paper to class, which made it even more difficult. But, when I went to quiz section I was given more of a wake up call. Our instructor explained to us the importance of being direct in our writing. In Political Science, it was about being clear and concise with our ideas, by saying exactly what we meant, without leaving open spaces. I interpreted that as making sure we don’t leave our reader assuming or implying anything that we wouldn’t have thought otherwise. This concept was all about being clear. I think for students, it’s important because for most of my peers we intend on majoring in either political science or possibly LSJ, and in that mindset we must engage ourselves. The threshold concept is a way for someone to understand or see something in a different way. And, to write in different ways is part of that concept. We, as writers must adapt to new styles in which we are taught. I thought that this example was something that I knew other students in our class could relate to because we all were given the same prompt. It didn’t make a difference whether each and every one of us wrote a different topic, or had completely different sources; we still were given the same direction to go in.
The troublesome part about all of this is that everyone may not understand. This wasn’t exactly the easiest concept to work with, but I figured I would choose something I thought was valuable. In the article by Jan Meyer and Ray Land, they described troublesome knowledge as “knowledge that is conceptually difficult.” Whenever you learn something new, it’s never easy, generally. It usually takes time and effort to really understand new concepts. If anything, I would categorize this concept as being a form of “ritual knowledge.” In the article, Perkins, (1999), describes it “Like part of a social or an individual ritual…[the routine that execute to get a particular result].” To me, I think that being direct, once learned could be considered ritual knowledge based on the fact that when you continue to write several papers, which you will, then you will repeatedly be in that same mindset, therefore using the same concept. But, the problem with that is that students may use that concept, however not being fully direct. They might write what they think the author really means, but at the same time not even understanding what they’re writing about. It’s just as easy to write a paper, without conceptually understanding that theory, which leads us straight into the troublesome knowledge that I was speaking of. I know, in the past I’ve written plenty of papers, where I understood what I considered surface knowledge, without actually considering other aspects of that area. It’s kind of like segregation; we may pass laws to desegregate and say that we accept that, but people still won’t understand. People won’t understand that “all men and women were created equal.” Now, that might be a little off, but it makes sense to me. There are plenty of issues that are swept under the carpet, and never considered because of troublesome knowledge. I would say that’s an even bigger picture to look at. But, in terms of being direct, it’s something we can actually capture and refine.
Furthermore, this concept was definitely valuable enough to bring to attention of the students. This to me is all about criticism and bettering yourself as a writer. It’s something that should be recognized, because we, as students, are all in need of improvement, even our English teacher as she pointed out. That’s beside the point, but the troublesome knowledge that I pointed out is pertinent to the cross over into understanding this concept. I know that my fellow peers could benefit from this if they have not taken this into account already. Writing about this concept has helped me understand it that much more. Like I said before, you can learn something, but still not fully understand something. I’m still at that stage. This is just another thing that makes you think twice and whether you really did grasp that concept. You may say you were direct and wrote what you thought was a clear thought of that author. But, that troublesome knowledge always comes back and makes you think; maybe I didn’t actually write or explain everything that I could’ve, but that is why I brought this topic out.
Pingback: Jerri
Pingback: Sweeney
Pingback: Sid