Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thoughts on the Perils and Promise of Interdisciplinary Pedagogy Author(s): Rebecca S. Nowacek Source: College Composition and Communication, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Feb., 2009), pp. 493-516 Published by: National Council of Teachers of English Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20457079 . Accessed: 23/09/2013 01:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Composition and Communication.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rebecca S. Nowacek
Stanley
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
cation programs? By one recent count, over half of current general education
reforms include interdisciplinary programs orcourses(Ratcliff). Are these pro indisguise?Is itpossible for grams merelydisciplinary imperialism anyone,
much less students in their firstyears of undergraduate studies, to engage in
authentically interdisciplinary work? ByFish's definition, theanswerisno:we I cannot, agree, escape disciplinary for constraints knowledge unfettered by discoursecommunities. But interdisciplinarity isnot simply a desire to slip the yokeofdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinary work-interdisciplinary teaching,
learning, and thinking-is work on the boundaries and intersections of disci
plines, work that doesnot transcend but rather transforms ourunderstanding ofdisciplines.
Understood in thisway, interdisciplinary studies and writing studies can
beneficial enjoyamutually classrooms offer a relationship: interdisciplinary for and powerful context writinginstruction, writinginstruction offers a pow
erfulmeans to help students engage in interdisciplinary learning. In this essay I draw on cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) and classroom research to explain why interdisciplinary teaching and learning are very difficult,but not impossible, to do. To illustrate, I focus on the challenges faced by participants in a team-taught interdisciplinary course designed to fillgeneral education
Defining Interdisciplinarity
Central to understanding interdisciplinarity is an understanding of
usedwithinthesystem. physical)
494
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOWACEK
/ WHY
IS BEING
INTERDISCIPLINARY
SO
VERY
HARD?
Mediational Tools
Subject
Object
Motive
Basic Figure 1: anactivity system. elements of incon Understood as activity arenotdefined systems, disciplines solely itistrue that tradistinction toone another, have though historically disciplines often defined in order and used their and tools to stake out objects, motives, turf in relation toone another. fi activity systems institutional Disciplinary theinterrelation ofsubject, nallytaketheir meaninganddefinition from tools, and object/motive. Theworld ofhumanaction,in thisview,is replete with often suchactivity in systems; individuals participate multiple simultaneously activity systems. as RussellandYafiezillustrate intheir CHAT analy Furthermore, superb sisof amediationaltool writing assignedinthe general education curriculum, used inothersystems history of dergraduate class) isoften (suchas thefield journalism or theacademicdiscipline professional ofhistory) but for very dif ferent motives. borrowed Activity theory helpsus tosee that materials arenever otheractivity and pure or devoidof resonancesfrom thoroughly systems, stresses thatindividuals mediationaltoolsfrom one disciplinary using activ of complex, ity system withinanotherfacea series and often unpredictable, unconscious negotiations. Given thisviewof disciplines, can be under interdisciplinary thought stoodas theshift a recognition of from of thecoexistence but appar multiple
ently independent activity systems to an awareness of the overlap and used in one activity system (for instance, the review essay assigned in an un
interanimation of thoseactivity The defining characteristic of inter systems. isnot freedom from alldisciplinary constraints butaware disciplinary thought
495
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
may obscureothers. connections and constraints, evenas it ouslyinvisible it remains Althoughinterdisciplinarity as I defineit isnot impossible,
very hard to do-and an analysis that focuses on the interdisciplinary class uniquely, room as the site of overlapping, interlocking activity systems can help us see why. Such an analysis can also help us seewhat ispowerful-perhaps as a site for writing instruction. My analyses here draw on and extend thework ofRussell and Yaniez, who use CHAT assigned to elucidate the challenges of general education courses through Irish history course. Although their focal stu their analysis of the difficulties facing students strugglingwith a book review in an undergraduate dent Beth had written reviews forher high school history class and a college journalism course, "this similarity proved to be maddeningly deceptive" (347). In actuality, Beth's Irish history course was a new activity system,with differ ent motives and different genre rules. However, Beth and her instructor were slow to recognize those differences, in part because both were unaccustomed to discussing the rhetorical domain of academic literacy.This is not the failing of a single classroom but emblematic of a largerproblem in general education: "Unfortunately,we do not have a robust vocabulary for talking about the dif ferences inwriting in different activity systems, which can make ences salient-in part because of the patterned isolation the differ and strategic to dis
ambiguity the contradiction in general education gives rise to" (354). Their analysis suggests that teachers need to create opportunities cuss the rhetorical domains of knowledge in various activity systems. Team
courses one suchopportunity. The simultaneous offer taught interdisciplinary tobe immersed theopportunities of presence multipleinstructors heightens
in and discuss the rhetorical dimension of disciplinary expectations. But di rect, explicit discussion of similarities and differences among multiple disci plinary ways of knowing is not easy to achieve. In the pages that follow I use the example of one classroom to illustrate the pitfalls and promise of interdis
classrooms. ciplinary
496
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
N OWAC
E K / WH
IS
B E ING
INTE
RD
ISC
IP LI N ARY
SO
VE RY
H A RD ?
One Mediational Tool, Four Activity Systems: Teaching the Thesis-Driven Essay in"lnterdisc"
The example Iprovide comes from my observations of a team-taught interdis
eraleducationrequirements. The course, as Interdisc knowncolloquially II, was composedof three distinctthree-credit classes-literature, history, and
religious studies-in which all eighteen students in the course had to enroll. in each other's classes on a regular basis. the ses As Figure 2 illustrates, each class period had a disciplinary designation, but professors attended and participated Sessions with only one professor present were the exception. Because
sions met back to back in the same room with all the same participants, dis cussions would sometimes go overtime or segue fromone to the next without a break. Generally, though, students kept separate notebooks foreach compo nent discipline and spoke of a given class period as belonging to a particular
evaluated by all three professors. Unfortunately, I did not have adequate cess to those exams to discuss them here.
Given the separate but coordinated structure of the course, can Interdisc
be considered Scholars of interdisciplinarity often dis truly interdisciplinary? between which involves mere juxtaposition tinguish the multidisciplinarity,
Wednesday 10-10:50 History: excerpts Aquinas' Treatise On Law 11-11:50 Literature: The Courtier
Thursday 9:30-10:45 Religious Studies: Aquinas' Summa (con't) 11-12:15 History: Chapter 7 Middle Ages
497
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
Interdisc Literature II Interdisc History II Olivia S)* RogerB)* (Professor (Professor **2-3 pg. on Chaucer **3-4 pg. on Faustus **4-5 pg. open topic midterm take-home take-home final medieval diary 2 informalresponse papers **FrenchRev. termpaper take-home midterm take-home final
Interdisc Religious Studies II Thomas H)* (Professor **8-10 pg. on Aquinas *`8-10 pg. comparative
The semesterculminated inan oral final, taken ingroupsof three, including presentation and insightsfrom of a thesisthatintegrates information all three disciplines by theirfirst names, so I have also professors *Studentsaddressed their a thesis *'Indicates assignmentsdescribed as requiring
3:Interdisciplinary Humanities II:The semester ata glance. Figure and interdisciplinarity, wordsoftwo ofdisciplines, highly regarded which,inthe on disciplinary studiesscholars, "draws perspectives and in interdisciplinary their added).To someextentI tegrates insights" (KleinandNewell3,emphasis distinction thatinterdisciplinary thought should haveechoed this byarguing as a shift from be understood indepen recognizing multiplebut apparently
dent activity systems to being aware of the overlap among those activity sys
tems. IdescribeInterdisc as interdisciplinary for reasons. First, the pro several to maximizeopportunities totreat thesyllabus fessors intentionally organized Milton concurrently) material (for students read Calvinand related instance, went beyondjuxtaposition tobuildon and respondtodiscussions and often More importantly thestandard distinction ledby their colleagues. though, and interdisciplinary between does juxtaposition integration multidisciplinary of individual as Ihave not sufficiently theimportance cognition. accountfor If, thedefining characteristic of interdisciplinary is"awareness thought argued,
of the constraints, complements, and interrelations of a limited number of
weakness ofvarious Giventhis the disciplinary activity systems. tiating overlaps Iprefer of the touse theterm distinction, multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary
interdisciplinary more broadly as a descriptor of courses that attempt to bring
498
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
N OWAC
E K / WH
IS
B E ING
INTE
RD
ISC
IP LI N ARY
SO
VE RY
H A R D?
disciplines
into dialogue.
in thosefour remained con those parts. Althoughtheparticipants systems ownsometimes sometimes conflict stant, thesystems had their overlapping,
ing objects and motives. But all systems employed (among other tools) the mediational tool of the thesis-driven essay. Tracing the use and representa tions of the thesis-driven essay by professors and students helps make visible the overlaps and conflicts among the four activity systems and cuts to the heart ofwhat is so challenging and promising about interdisciplinary teaching.
The semester included more thantwo dozenepisodesofexplicit writing instruction, distributed amongall three The Interdisc instructors disciplines.
did not simply assign writing; theyworked to teach writing: they sequenced assignments, engaged students in discussions munication about their expectations, and worked tomake some assignments an opportunity forexploration and com rather than simply evaluation. The history professor assigned re action papers thatwere the springboard for in-class discussions. The religious studies professor conferenced with students and wrote copious comments on their ten-page analytical papers. The literature professor frequently assigned
intheir overthose different motives-but glossed differences assignments very and classdiscussions.
Early in the semester, during one of the rare periods when he was the only
instructor present, the history professor, Roger(all and student names professor
are pseudonyms), distributed a description of his expectations per on the French Revolution: fora term pa
499
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
The purpose of the history termpaper is towrite history fromoriginal sources. ... The textbook will provide an overview for background and a start-upbibliog raphy; you should also look at secondary sources as needed. Remember, however, that the essence of your paper should relyon the primary sources. Your com pleted paper should not merely narrate an event,but provide an analysis of a At best, it will argue to a conclusion, a thesis.The question you pose for yourself. paper shouldbe approximately10-15 pageswith appropriatedocumentation and written clearlyand thoughtfully. bibliography, Roger went on to orally explain what he meant by "thesis" and its relationship
to"topic."
Notice step number one isnot "I am going to Step number one is topick a topic. prove that." That's not a topic, that'sa thesis.A thesis is an argument.Topic is me your topic, it simply "I am going towrite my paper about." So when you tell should be a phrase, not an argument.That comes later. The theoryis thatyou're not surewhat the argument is going to be until you've looked at the resources. You don't set out toprove something;you set out to seewhere the evidence leads you.Okay? The mediational tool of the thesis essaywas given particular meaning and form the evidence leads you"-a methodological approach he
by Roger's overridingmotive of getting students to reason fromprimary sources by "see[ing] where associated with the discipline of history. At the beginning of the next week, the literature professor, Olivia, distrib uted an assignment asking students to "explain the difference" between a pair of critical comments on one of Chaucer's prologues and to "compar[e] the in terpretation of Chaucer each position enables you tomake." Like Roger, Olivia initiated a conversation on the difference between thesis and topic, asking stu dents to explain their understanding of the two. The students responded by echoing Roger's language exactly, saying "the topic is the broad overview of what you're doing, your thesis isyour argument:' As she replied, Olivia initially distinguished topic and thesis much as Roger did: "Yeah, your thesis is your argument.... A topic iswhat you're going to talk about. A thesis iswhat you As she continued, though, she articulated a personally have to say about it." motive considerably different fromRoger's. A thesis, she said, "has to venture something. Peter Elbow, who's a writer about writing I like a lot, says ithas to stick its neck out. If itdoesn't stick its neck out, it'snot a thesis." Roger wanted students to startwith a topic and work theirway to a the sis; in fact,he leftopen the possibility that students might never articulate an
500
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOWACEK
/ WHY
IS
BEING
INTERDISCIPLINARY
SO
VERY
HARD?
explicit thesis: "Atbest:' Roger says in his assignment, the paper "will argue to a conclusion, a thesis."During the lastweek of the semester, Roger even stated
replacethethesis, which is"what youpersonally have tosay"about thattopic. nextassignment onMarlowe's Faustusalso stressed theexplicitly ar Olivia's
gumentative nature of the necessary thesis: "Please remember to ... advance
an argumentative thesis." Themediationaltoolof thethesis-driven was essay given quite a different meaningbyOlivia'soverriding which focused motive, itsneckout" thanon "see[ing] more on "stick[ing] where theevidenceleads
you.: Olivia's focus on an argumentative thesis offered a striking contrast to
Puzzledby theassignment and attempting tounderstand whetherthis paper further inclass. was tocontainanyargument, students asked for explanation
One student remarked that "it seems tome that it [asks for]a regurgitation of
Aquinas." In response, Thomas used, forthefirst time, the word "thesis" to hispaper: describe
When you analyze a writer you're just not regurgitating. You're criticizing. It's a criticalexercise-it has tobe-because you are picking these thingsout,weigh There's toomuch Aquinas for ing them,arguing them. you toput into thepaper, so you're going to have to choose, going to have to order,and organize it intoan argument.... So what you'regoing to do ispresent a Thomistic analysis of salva tion. And it'svery much like what Olivia ... has been having you do [in in-class when you analyze a textand you thinklike Aquinas. Well, Iwant you freewrites]
501
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
most to reallythinklike Aquinas.... What ties the system together? What's the important thingabout it? Why does it work or notwork? Your thesiswill prob Aquinas about ably come in that sort of a shape. The most important thing for major prin salvation, to understand Aquinas about salvation is.He has a few And thengo throughand say:well, given ciples he's using.He's combining them. ways. So it is a [Aquinas'] understanding of this,salvationworks in the following reconstructionof his argument.
is Aquinas aboutsalvation
salvation works in the followingways." Such a thesis is notable not for the de gree that it sticks itsneck out, but for the degree that itaptly identifiesAquinas'
what evidence is there that theway these instructors represent thesis is repre sentative of their disciplines? This is a question worth asking, foralthough it has long been an article of faith in thewriting in the disciplines (WID) litera ture that different disciplines have (sometimes profoundly) differentways of knowing and textual conventions, the usefulness of that article of faith has recently come into question. Thaiss has argued that the notion ofwriting in the disciplines has led to unproductive generalizations tors and mask that stereotype instruc the richness of their complex and sometimes hybrid disciplin
ary backgrounds. He proposes a focus on writing in the course (WIC), a change in focus that "would allow researchers to observe the richness of each course context without having to fit that context within the arbitrary category of a so-called discipline" (316). Similarly, Severino and Trachsel report that in the course of examining assignments from a wide variety of disciplines within a college of liberal arts and sciences, they "did not see disciplinary genres accul turating students to distinct patterns of thought" (450). Instead they found "unanticipated but profound differences among individual teachers' pedagogies
502
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOWACEK
/ WHY
IS BEI NG
INTERDISCI
PLI NARY
SO
VERY
HARD?
around which Aquinas organizes his theology"), with the option ofmaking it an analysis paper ("at the end you may append your own personal critique as to its failings"). Furthermore, Murphy echoes Thomas's in-class discussion of it (ordinarily) regurgitation versus argument by explaining that although "itmight be ob jected that a research paper does not make any claims because contains no explicit arguments-it simply reports on its subject:" such objec
tions "overloo[k] the fact that all such descriptions are selective and involve judgment about what is important" and therefore include the "implicit claim not only thatwhat is reported is true but also that it represents (1) a fair and balanced account of (2) themost important aspects of the subject in ques
tion" (72).
While Thomas's representation of thesis fitsneatly into a very small body of scholarly analysis of religious studies, Roger's representation of thesis can be contextualized within a vociferous debate in the discipline of history.
503
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
504
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
N OWAC
E K / WHY
IS
B E ING
INTE
R D ISC
IP L IN ARY
SO
VE RY
H A R D?
the"mistaken critic"topos. has termed Though what Wildermore recently indescribing interested how literary scholars Freyand Wilder areprimarily in to work order build these methods fore toeachother's knowledge, respond
ground the necessity of a clear argument articulated early in a literaryanalysis.
Emphasizing Similarity,Eliding Difference: The Double Bind stressed among theprofessors thesimilarities Throughout classdiscussions,
their expectations for writing, but therewas little face-to-face dialogue among them. Exceptions to that trend were rare, but in one such moment two in for a structors talked together in front of the class about their expectations initiated by Olivia, who spontaneously oping a thesis: Roger: Think in terms of the distinction now between a topic and a thesis .... A topic in a sense is a phrase: I am going to do a paper about blank. A thesis is a declarative sentence that is as particular as possible.... What were you going to say? Olivia: Iwas going to offer my definition of a thesis.... And if this doesn't you work forhistory, thiswill be an interesting thing forus to find out.When [turns to Olivia]
thesis. This interaction occurred during the eleventh week of class and was responded to Roger's advice on devel
with thewords "I think get to your thesis, you should be able to preface it that" and then complete the sentence. And thenwhen you're all done, to be more sophisticated erase "I think that."But ifyou can't say "I think that blah blah blah blah blah," it'snot a thesis. Does Roger: Ah, not too well. Because reality.So it'snot just an opinion. Olivia: Well, I don't think ithas to do with opinion. What with is your personal analysis.... I think ithas to do That that'swhat pushes it towards analysis, thatwork forhistory? historians like to think that they're finding
notopinion.
505
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
Roger: Mm
hmm. I guess I, I think basically we're saying the same thing. I follow is a declarative sentence in itself. tomake sure you guys are clear that you
guess I feelmore comfortable with itnot prefaced by "I think that."That sim plywhat would Olivia: [turning to the class] Iwant
would never hand this in to anyone with the "I think that" still there.But some of you might want to thinkmaybe in other disciplines about that.And Iwould still say that if you think about itanalytically instead of subjectively thatmight help with history. Right? Because you can't say "I think that the French Revo the lution." But you can say "I think that a change in sexual mores produced
French Revolution."
Roger: I see. Actually it comes out the same because ithas to be a declarative
went by the same name in each of the the thesis-driven essay was the same: it three disciplines, and the professors affirmed similarities during discussion. But these similarities were, as Russell and Yaniez say, "maddeningly deceptive" and posed considerable challenges to the students enrolled in Interdisc. The conflicts among motives and mediational cal double bind." In CHAT tools put the Interdisc stu inwhich an dents inwhat Engestrom and other CHAT theorists identifyas "a psychologi terms, a double bind is a scenario
506
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
N OWAC
E K / WHY
IS
B EI N G
INTE
RD
ISC
IP L IN ARY
SO
VE RY
H AR D?
two messagesor commands individual "receives whichdenyeachother-and theindividual isunable tocomment on the messages"(Engestrom, chapter 3). situationsin Double binds are thoseuncomfortable and perhaps inevitable which individuals experience withinor betweenactivity contradictions sys
tems (e.g., between themotives and tools within a single activity system or between themotives of two different activity systems) but cannot articulate
meta-awareness of those contradictions. any In Interdisc, thestudents received contradictory messages regarding the
mediational tool of the thesis-driven essay: the type of thesis valued by any one professor would not necessarily be valued by his or her colleagues, yet students had towrite for all three professors. To recognize the differences
to write less thansatisfactory would lead students differences papers. There were fewclassroom on thoseconflicts, stu opportunities to reflect leaving
dents to come to anymeta-awareness of those conflicts on their own.
Bind
Will, a first-yearstudent with a double major in religious studies and philoso phy, earned high grades on all three papers under consideration here, and all three professors identified him as one of themost successful students in the class. Analyses ofWill's texts indicate that he made subtle but important part because he adjustments to his essays in each discipline. But Will was vexed by the process ofmoving among the various disciplinary expectations-in focused solely on mediational relied on a distinction between "research papers" and "analysis papers" that tools; he was not able to articulate how themo tives of various activity systems might alter those tools.
507
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
Will explained that although research and analysis papers are both ver sions of the thesis-driven essay, each entails a particular writing process and results in a different kind of paper. Analysis papers, as Will described them, are relatively brief, call fora clear "personal opinion:' and generally focus on a single text; in CHAT terms, themotive of the analysis paper tool is tomake a clear and focused argument. Research papers tend to be longer, address less
French Revolution as a research paper, and fortunately themotive of a research it jibed with Roger's motive of encouraging students these two genres that were able to coexist to use primary texts to develop arguments as historians do. Because fell into clearly discernible
unproblematically with the expectations of his instructors, they did not chal lengeWill's sense ofwhat to do or how to do it. But theAquinas about theAquinas Will's paper did not fallneatly into either of two genres, asked and as a result he struggled to develop the thesis for that paper. When
itrequired:
than It was really hard to jump into.... Iwrote thisone actually a little differently Iwrite a lotofpapers.... Usuallywhen I'vehad todo a paper of that length it was where I'dbeen working on itand studying it more like a researchkind of thing was reallyjust like the with the intentofwriting thepaper.... But this time it more material. [analysis]essays Iwrite usually,but a lot longerand coveringa lot Part ofwhat was so differentwas that despite the fact that he finally had de
was an analysis paper,Will spent almost no timeworking on the thesis cided it statement and introductory paragraph: "the intro and conclusion were also minutes very hard. I did those in about five sis was combined, just because I really didn't know what to say in them." ForWill, articulating an argumentative the secondary to showing mastery of the component parts of Aquinas' the thesis guiding model of salvation. Differences were evident in the text as well. Whereas Will's Faustus paper made the low scenes and themain plot ofFaustus-"This a clear argument about the relationship between subplot ofDoctor Faustus
508
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOWACEK
/ WHY
IS
BEING
INTERDISCIPLINARY
SO
VERY
HARD?
parallels Faustus' own downfall, and his actions toward them mirror the ac
ofhisAquinaspaper surveyed tionstaken statement against him"-the thesis the partsof component butdidnot"stick its neck Aquinas'model ofsalvation in in work out:' Will identified an important tension Aquinas' the penultimate ofhis introduction discussion sentence ("Thiscomprehensive leads ultimately
to a model of salvation that acknowledges the omnipotence and supremacy of
totheir own futures"), God aswell as theimportance ofhumans' contributions of the then overviewed theorganization sentence: Will de paper in thefinal than scribedthisthesis asmore summary argument. But evenif he composedthisthesis quickly, Will's drafts indicate that his was more than His scribbled success mere luck. Will that marginaliasuggest sawhis overall on "theoperative orproblems purposeas focusing principles which his theology." Will's notesalso indicate around Aquinas organizes that he believedthat thereasonableness he needed to"makea case for of Aquinas' ineach area onlysecondarily. theology" By identifying theseoperative prin Will "thought withAquinas"-exactly the ciplesand problems, motive along Thomas articulated his classdiscussions during and interviews. Despitemeeting Thomas'sexpectations, Will doubted whetherthis was
an appropriate way towrite a thesis. In fact, Will described his thesis as "a cop out:' as merely "a rehashing or a reformulation" thatwasn't "arguing" any one
particular point. Itwas not, in Will's evaluation, particularly "insightful." more than demandsomething Whereas analysis papersusually "regurgitation:'
Will said theAquinas thatwas original." Will had intuited the differences in themotives among the various activ paper was a regurgitation "more than he wanted to let was only "the structuring, kind of putting it in our own logical flow, on" since it
systems hewas beingasked tonegotiate. Butwhen thosedifferences in ity indifferences motives in the manifestedthemselves textually, resulting me diationtools(as inthethesis his Will second-guessed work,call statements),
ing it "a cop out." This denigration of thework he had successfully done suggests
itisfor howdifficult students-to the double participants-especially negotiate on them when bindsplaced collide. activity disciplinary systems Will wrote but intuiting the successful papers, differences was amongthe activity systems notsufficient toescape the double bind. Because psychological Will could make nometacommunicative statement abouthowor whythose systems conflicted, he remained puzzled byhis success. Despite his good grades,there was no move toward apparentinterdisciplinary of thecon awareness learning-no
509
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
this problem.
What if,however, the professors had engaged inmeta-level discussions for writing and reasoning in their disciplines? What provided with a rich to serve as affordances I about their expectations
if Will had been explicitly prompted to think about-and ing? What if,in other words, these conflicts were made
am imagining here is reminiscent of Gerald Graff's injunction to "teach the success," Graff argues, can be traced "to the ability of challenge: the ability to en an institution to create a community out of its differences" (172). My analyses of the Interdisc classroom suggest a companion gage inmeta-reflection on the differences within a community. The Interdisc classroom had great potential to facilitate discussions of the differences among disciplines, but that potential was not fullyrealized. Why?
were aware ferences, foras the exchange between Olivia and Roger shows, they of the differences to at least some degree. Instead, I believe that the lack of attention to disciplinary differences is best explained by the fact that these instructors were experiencing double binds of their own, conflicts among or were participating. within the various activity systems inwhich they Perhaps themost important double bind facing the three Interdisc in structors was the conflict between themotives of their individual disciplinary activity systems and the activity system of Interdisc itself.As I have argued, themotives that guided these three professors' disciplinary activity systems to think like a history major, tomake pointed arguments based on how lan guage operates in a text, to think alongwith great religious thinkers-conflicted we shiftour attention to the activity system of Interdisc with one another. But if as a whole, the three instructors were able to articulate a shared motive: to stress convergences and connections among the three disciplines. They elabo rated this point together in a joint interview:
510
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOWACEK
/ WHY
IS
BEING
INTERDISCIPLINARY
SO
VERY
HARD?
Olivia:
much disciplinary difference is the point [ofwhat we do in Interdisc].... might be interesting to do a little bit more of thatwith them because there are questions
history can't and vice versa. I think all three of us could tell you what some of those things are [but] I'm not sure if the students in the class could. Thomas: I think thatwould be asking a good deal toomuch of them.... We in some of them, perhaps, at the This [focus on disciplinary differences] is [The pri might put a seed in theirmind thatmaybe end of four years will germinate....
so abstract for them that I doubt that they could get theirminds around it. Olivia: And I think the priority for all of us is precisely the opposite. which [students] can do stuff when they see ... all of the ority] is all theways in convergences. So since we can't do everything, I think that'smore important to all of us. Roger: And I think to the extent it's team-taught the effortgoes into trying to make the linkages. Not trying to show the differences. to stress similarities grew from several sources. It grew
partly from a sense that the students were not cognitively ready for interdisci
literary the differences between the studies, disciplines hadbecome,in Roger's words,"fuzzy."
Finally, themotivation to stress convergences sprang from a sense that it
511
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
usual fragmented experi thestudents a valuablecounterpoint totheir offered As Thomas explained: curriculum. enceof the undergraduate
The way inwhich the university is organized takes a culture that is a seamless verygood reasons.There are good reasons that's whole and chops itup. And for misleading. done. But on theother hand, it is an artificialconstruction,and it's weave itback togetheragain, so works-tries to So, interdisciplinarity-whereit Milton ... because the that what theylearn inmy section suddenly shows up in we do chop itup [administratively, with sepa boundaries are not there.Even if rategrades foreach component discipline],we trytohave theboundaries broken down. And indeed the students frequentlypraised how integrated the class was, how
amongtheir work for thethree disciplines. sawconnections oftenthey inteam-taught interdisciplinary class instructors working Furthermore, and impulse to stress similarities rooms must fight againstanother powerful todevelop thetendency whatGrossman, Wineburg, and differences: downplay
Woolworth term a pseudocommunity. In their study of high school literature and history teachers working together to design an interdisciplinary curricu lum,Grossman and colleagues found that participants were eager to get along with their new colleagues and quick to attribute differences of opinion to su perficial personality conflicts rather than any fundamental epistemological disagreements. In CHAT terms, the unofficial motive of "getting along" within the larger system of interdisciplinary collaboration conflicts with and gener ally trumps any effort to recognize the diverse officialmotives of the various
writing in the disciplines. But the difficulty of realizing the potential of the interdisciplinary classroom as a site to explore disciplinary connections
512
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
N OWAC
E K / WH
IS
B E IN G
INTE
RD
ISC
IP LI N A RY
SO
VE RY
H A RD ?
not be laid solely at the feet of individual instructors who are "too nice" or
Such learning is not easy or inevitable for students or teachers, but ifpartici pants can identify and name these double binds, can describe and analyze them, they are better positioned to learn through them.
studies, to engage in authentically interdisciplinary work? The answer lies in how we define "authentically interdisciplinary work" and how we go about fa
awareness it. that of the The Interdisc instructors disciplines cilitating thought
qua disciplines and their differences was too much to ask of first-year stu
areexpectedtonegotiate suggest thatstudents dents, but Will's experiences withor withoutthe benefit of meta-awareness. interdisciplinary doublebinds is impossible for anyone-but he stacks Fish arguesthatinterdisciplinarity as thedesireto transcend thedeckbydefining interdisciplinarity disciplines
entirely.But if by interdisciplinary work we mean work that takes place in and becomes aware of the intersections of various disciplinary activity systems, aware of our
is tohelp for understood thus, The challenge interdisciplinary teaching, tools, andother individuals negotiate the conflicts among motives, mediational
elements of disciplinary activity systems by identifying and naming those double binds, by facilitating opportunities to reflect on and make meta-com municative statements about those conflicts. The double binds that arise when elements of disciplinary activity systems conflict can serve as constraints or as affordances. The briefwindow I have provided into one team-taught inter
513
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
ingon thesedisciplinary collisionsarise in suchclassrooms andwhy those opportunities aresometimes squandered. While team-taught interdisciplinary
classrooms are not the only contexts for such learning, they offer a powerful
for context learning about therelationships among various disciplinary activ systems, about theinternal logic of those disciplinary systems, and ity activity
about themediational tools central to those activity systems: in other words, for learning about interdisciplinarity, disciplinarity, and the role ofwriting in
thedisciplines.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the professors and students of Interdisc IIfor allowing me into theirclassroom and sharing their work and ideas so generously. I would also like to thankDeborah Brandt, Virginia Chappell, Krista Ratcliffe, David Russell, and an anonymous CCC reviewerfortheircomments and advice on earlier versions of this manuscript. This research was supported in itsearly stages by an NCTE Grant-in Aid and more recently by a Summer Faculty FellowshipfromMarquette University.
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan. A Short Guide toWriting about Literature. 7th ed. New York 1996. Free Speech and It's a Good ThingToo. New York Oxford UP, 1994.231-42. Frey, Olivia. Women's "Beyond Literary Darwinism: Voices and Critical Discourse." 52.5 (1990): 507-26.
and John A. Williams. or Not by "Writing History: Informed Genre Theory?" Genre Across the Curriculum. 2005.44-64. Charles Moran.
Beyond the Culture Wars: Teaching the Conflicts Can New Revitalize American Education. Norton, 1992.
Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 1973. Engestr?m, Helsinki, Yrjo. Learning by Expanding. 1987. Mind, Culture, Activity
"The Question of Authen a First-Year in ticity: Teaching Writing College History of Science Class."
Research
Homepage. Laboratory of Comparative 10 April 2001. 3 Human Cognition. January 2006 <http://lchc.ucsd.edu/ MCA/Paper/Engestrom/ toc.htm>. Fish, Stanley. Very Hard expanding/
(2001): 525-69.
Grossman,
in the Teaching
of English
35
Is So "Being Interdisciplinary to Do." Profession 89 (1989): 15-22. Rpt. in There's No Such Thing As
and Pam, Sam Wineburg, "What Makes Stephen Woolworth. Teacher Community Different from a Gathering of Teachers?" University of Teaching Center for the Study of 2000.3 and Policy, December 2006 January <http://depts.washington.
Washington:
514
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NOWACEK
/ WHY
IS BEING
INTERDISCIPLINARY
SO
VERY
HARD?
edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Community-GWW 01-2001.pdf>. Klein, Julie Thompson, Newell. "Advancing Studies." Handbook ate Curriculum: to Purposes, and William H.
Severino,
Carol, and Mary Trachsel. "Starting aWriting Fellows Program: or Crossing Disciplines Crossing International Journal of Pedagogies?"
Strategies, Practices, and Change. Ed. Jerry Gaff and James Ratcliff. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997. Rpt. in Interdisciplinarity: from the Literature. Ed. William Newell. New York Examination Klemm, David. Essays H.
Sharon. "Writing in History: the Subject of Time." Written Narrating 12.1 (1995): 47-73. Communication WAC: Christopher. "Theory in Have We Been, Where Are We
Thaiss, Where
Going." WAC for theNew Millennium: Strategies for Continuing Writing Across the Curriculum McLeod Council 299-326. Walvoord, Barbara E., and Lucille Programs. Ed. Susan H. et al. Urbana, IL: National of English, 2001.
"The Rhetoric
cal Argument." The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Ed. John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald N. McCloskey. Madison: Marwick, U ofWisconsin P, 1987.
of Teachers
McCarthy. Thinking and Writing in Study of Students College: A Naturalistic inFour Disciplines. IL: National Urbana, Council White, of Teachers of English, 1991.
and Rhetoric Murphy, Nancey C. Reasoning inReligion. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity P 1994. International, Ratcliff, James L., et al. The Status of in the Year 2000: General Education Survey. Summary of DC: Association of Washington, American Colleges and Universities, 2001. Russell, David R., and Arturo Ya?ez. "'Big Picture People Rarely Become Histori ans': Genre Systems and the Contradic tions of General Education." Writing Selves /Writing Societies. Ed. Charles and David R. Russell. 3 Bazerman a National
Hayden. The Content of the Form: and Historical Narrative Discourse Baltimore: Representation. UP, 1987. Laura. '"The Rhetoric Johns
Hopkins Wilder,
Criticism'
Revisited: Mistaken
of Literary Critics,
Complex Contexts, and Social Justice." 22.1 (2005): Written Communication 76-119. Yaghjian, Lucretia B. "Writing Cultures, Enculturating Writing at Two Theologi cal Schools: Mapping Rhetorics of Correlation 128-40. and Liberation."
Teaching
Rebecca S. Nowacek
Marquette Rebecca S.Nowacek isassistant professor of rhetoricand composition at University. In addition to teaching courses in advanced composition and a semi
515
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CCC
60:3
/ FEBRUARY
2009
nar for new TAs, she teaches an interdisciplinary senior capstone course in Marquette's honors program. She is a 2005-6 Carnegie Scholar with theCarnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and her articles have ap peared inCollege English, JGE: The Journal ofGeneral Education, and Research in theTeaching ofEnglish. She is currently at work on a book manuscript exploring the role ofwriting in interdisciplinaryclassrooms.
516
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions