Bridger Foote

Stephanie Maenhardt
English 1010
4/21/2019
Letter of Transmittal
Dear Professor Maenhardt,
As each Threshold Concept was introduced throughout our semester, I was able to gain
perspective on the various ways of interpreting writing. This not only helped me ask critical
questions as I read, but also showed me different techniques to enhance my writing capabilities.
I found that the biggest use of these concepts were developed amongst peer reviews, and my own
personal essay revisions. Through writing our own essays, I had the freedom of deciding what I
wanted to write about. For instance, during the flash narrative, I decided to write about coming
out to my father. This directly relates to the concept of [Choices] because I had an idea in mind
that I wanted to share to my peers. I delicately messed around with different strategies, to invoke
the feeling I felt at this time in my life, by being more descriptive in my word choice.
Looking back on our labs together, I found that you taught me much about the concept of
[Literate Practices and Processes], as well as the threshold, [Writing Is A Resource]. They way I
view it, is these two work together in unison. The literate practices showed me how to research,
revise, and interpret my writing, whereas, “writing is a resource” gave me the overall motive, as
to what I was writing. When you would read my assignments during our lab, I found that you
often asked me why I decided to write about a specific subject. This stirred conversation, as I
would give you my personal purpose, and desires as to what I intended my audience to feel.
Through annotating my papers, especially in the lab setting, I was able to ask myself more
questions, and pinpoint the changes I needed to emphasize in my own writing.
While doing the notebooks, I found that they were in many ways, like reiterating what I had done
in the given week; with an added influence on the concept of [Context]. The notebooks asked
specific questions regarding my writing, and allowed me to step back, view my rough drafts, and
ask my self who my audience was directed towards. My overall theme this semester was to write
about issues I found important to myself; a major theme of mine was mental health. To do this, I
would relate much of this context to our society. I shared my personal experience in the
Narrative, and researched statistics, and surveys through the Bibliography and Synthesis paper’s.
I attempted to create something that had meaning not only to myself, but that others could relate
too.
During our weekly readings, and discussions, I found the threshold idea of [Rhetoric] was the
primary concept applied. This is mainly because, in our readings, we were looking into the
ethos, pathos and logos, of several articles. It also felt to be a theme in many of our peer reviews.
Doing this was great practice and allowed myself to look at the decisions of writers, and how
they encompassed effective appeals to emotion, logic, and ethics. These in my opinion, were the
greatest tools to interpret writing styles, and approaches.
In the Peer reviews, I was able to see how my classmates used their own rhetorical strategies,
and during that process noticed how [Action] was indeed a major application. Like I said before,
the topics I decided to write about were only written because of the meaning I shared with them.
I wanted to discuss a subject of importance, because I knew that’s where my best writing would
be channeled. The same goes for my peers. I don’t believe I was alone in this way of thinking,
because plenty of other’s wanted to discuss personal issues, and problems they faced. The
vulnerability we each shared, was terrifying, but it inspired me to continue. No changes will
come, if we don’t talk about social stigmas. That’s what I told myself as I wrote about mental
illness, and my narrative.
Realistically, each and every paper we wrote, can be identified with the threshold concepts we
learned this semester. It’s really a matter of interpretation. Each concept works like a different
piece of a puzzle. If you are missing a piece, you can’t visualize the full picture. When all the
pieces are together, this allows for better clarification. For instance, if you don’t understand
rhetoric, then the choices an author makes may lose their significance. If the choices are
questioned, perhaps the reader does not fully grasp the context of what they are reading. It’s truly
a domino effect.