Skip to content
2018
Volume 53, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0034-527X
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2348

Abstract

audience awareness

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829755
2018-08-15
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler-Kassner L. Clark I. Robertson L. Taczak K. Yancey K. B. (2016)  Assembling knowledge: The role of threshold concepts in facilitating transfer. Anson C. M. Moore J. L. . Critical transitions: Writing and the question of transfer, 17–47. Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse; Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adler-Kassner L. Majewski J. Koshnick D. (2012)  The value of troublesome knowledge: Transfer and threshold concepts in writing and history. Composition Forum, 26, Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/troublesome-knowledge-threshold.php
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adler-Kassner L. Wardle E. (2015)  Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies. Logan: Utah State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexander M. (2012)  The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartholomae D. Petrosky A. R. (1986)  Facts, artifacts and counterfacts: Theory and method for a reading and writing course. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergmann L. S. Zepernick J. S. (2007)  Disciplinarity and transfer: Students’ perceptions of learning to write. WPA, 31 1-2 124–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bird B. (2013)  A basic writing course design to promote writer identity: Three analyses of student papers. Journal of Basic Writing, 32 (1), 62–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Browne M. N. Keeley S. M. (2011)  Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking 10th Boston: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bunn M. (2013)  Motivation and connection: Teaching reading (and writing) in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 64, 496–516.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bures F. (2008)  June A mind dismembered. Harpers. Retrieved from http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/a-mind-dismembered/
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Carillo E. C. (2015)  Securing a place for reading in composition: The importance of teaching for transfer. Logan: Utah State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carillo E. C. (2016)  Creating mindful readers in first-year composition courses: A strategy to facilitate transfer. Pedagogy, 16 (1), 9–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Carter S. (2006)  Redefining literacy as a social practice. Journal of Basic Writing, 25 (2), 94–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cousin G. (2006)  An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, 17, 4–5.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Downs D. (2010)  Teaching first-year writers to use texts: Scholarly readings in writing-about-writing in first-year comp. Reader, 60, 19–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Driscoll D. L. Wells J. (2012)  Beyond knowledge and skills: Writing transfer and the role of student dispositions. Composition Forum, 26, Retrieved from http://composition forum.com/issue/26/beyond-knowledge-skills.php
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fang Z. (2016)  Teaching close reading with complex texts across content areas. Research in the Teaching of English, 51, 106–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fang Z. Schleppegrell M. (2008)  Readingin secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Flyvbjerg B. (2006)  Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goen S. Gillotte-Tropp H. (2003)  Integrating reading and writing: A response to the basic writing crisis. Journal of Basic Writing, 22 (2), 90–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gogan B. (2013)  Reading at the threshold. Across the Disciplines, 10 (4), Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/atd/reading/gogan.cfm
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Graff G. Birkenstein C. Durst R. (2006)  “They say, I say”: The moves that matter inacademic writing. New York: Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jolliffe D. A. Harl A. (2008)  Studying the “reading transition” from high school to college: What are our students reading and why?. College English, 70, 599–617.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Keller D. (2014)  Chasing literacy: Reading and writing in an age of acceleration. Logan: Utah State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Land R. Cousin G. Meyer J. H. Davies P. (2005)  Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): Implications for course design and evaluation. Rust C. . Improving student learning diversity and inclusivity, 53–63. Oxford, England: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and Development.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Land R. Rattray J. Vivian P. (2014)  Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67, 199–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lave J. Wenger E. (1991)  Situatedlearning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lea M. R. (2004)  Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher Education, 29, 739–756.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lea M. R. Street B. V. (1998)  Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lea M. R. Street B. V. (2006)  The “academic literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory Into Practice, 45, 368–377.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Levine A. J. Momand J. Finlay C. A. (1991)  The p53 tumour suppressor gene. Nature, 351, 453–456.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lockhart T. Soliday M. (2016)  The critical place of reading in writing transfer (and beyond): A report of student experiences. Pedagogy, 16 (1), 23–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lynch-Biniek A. (2009)  Filling in the blanks: They Say, I Say, and the persistence of formalism. CEA Forum, 38 (2), Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1097776.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mccormick K. Waller G. F. (1987)  Text, reader, ideology: The interactive nature of the reading situation. Poetics, 16, 193–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Meyer J. H. F. Land R. (2005)  Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 373–388.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Meyer J. Land R. (2006)  Overcomingbarriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Miles M. B. Huberman A. M. (1994)  Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Moje E. B. (2007)  Chapter 1: Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching Review of Research in Education, 31 (1), 1–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Moore J. T. (2011)  Chemistry for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Palin S. (2011)  America’s enduring strength. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/18698532
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Patton M. Q. (2005)  Qualitative research. San Francisco: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Pope-RUARK R. (2011)  Know thy audience: Helping students engage a threshold concept using audience-based pedagogy. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5 (1), 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Prior P. (1998)  Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Robertson L. Taczak K. Yancey K. B. (2012)  Notes toward a theory of prior knowledge and its role in college composers’ transfer of knowledge and practice. Com-position Forum, 26, Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/prior-knowledge-transfer.php
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Shanahan C. Shanahan T. Misischia C. (2011)  Analysis of expert readers in three disciplines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Soliday M. (2011)  Everyday genres: Writing assignments across the disciplines. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Smith C. H. (2012)  Interrogating texts: From deferent to efferent and aesthetic reading practices. Journal of Basic Writing, 31 (1), 59–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sweeney M. A. Mcbride M. (2015)  Difficulty paper (dis)connections: Understanding the threads students weave between their reading and writing. College Composition and Communication, 66, 591–614.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Villanueva V. (2013)  Subversive complicity and basic writing across the curriculum. Journal of Basic Writing, 31 (1), 97–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wardle E. (2012)  Creative repurposing for expansive learning: Considering “problem-exploring” and “answer-getting” dispositions in individuals and fields. Composition Forum, 26, Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/creative-repurposing.php
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829755
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/rte201829755
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error