From Taxonomy to Toolbox: A Pragmatist Model for Teaching Literary Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53103/cjess.v6i3.494Keywords:
Literary Theory Pedagogy, Pragmatism, Problem-Based Learning, Theory Anxiety, ArgumentationAbstract
This article addresses the persistent pedagogical problem of “theory anxiety” in undergraduate literary studies, where students frequently perceive critical theory as a set of abstract, competing ideologies to be memorized rather than practical analytical tools. Drawing on Richard Rorty’s neopragmatism and Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation, we propose a pedagogical shift from a taxonomic approach—which emphasizes the categorization of “isms”—to a pragmatic “toolbox” model. This article presents a theoretical framework for a “Problem-Based Theory” module designed to reframe theories as vocabularies for solving specific interpretive problems. By integrating Rorty’s rejection of foundationalism with Toulmin’s practical argumentation schema (Claim, Data, Warrant, Backing), the proposed model aims to empower students to become critical bricoleurs. Rather than seeking the “correct” theoretical framework, students would learn to select and justify theoretical tools based on their explanatory power for specific texts. Assessment is proposed through “toolbox essays,” which would require students to explicitly justify their methodological choices. This conceptual article concludes by outlining the empirical research agenda necessary to validate this pedagogical intervention.
Downloads
References
Abbas, N. F. (2012). Pragmatics and the teaching of literature. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 2(4), 624–634.
Campbell, A. (1997). Teaching literary theory to undergraduates: What have we learned? English, 46(185), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1093/english/46.185.97
Corrigan, P. T. (2023). Scaffolding critical reading. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 11. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.6
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gilman, C. P. (1892). The yellow wallpaper. The New England Magazine, 11(5), 647–656.
Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Hitchcock, D. (2005). Good reasoning on the Toulmin model. Argumentation, 19(3), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4422-y
Karbach, J. (1987). Using Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6(1), 81–91.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)
Markušić, J., & Sabljić, J. (2019). Problem-based teaching of literature. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(5), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v7i5.4124
Rahman, M. A., Azmi, M. N. L., & Wahab, Z. (2016). The impacts of “problem-based learning” approach in enhancing critical thinking skills to teaching literature. Journal of English Language and Literature, 6(2), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.17722/jell.v6i2.128
Rex, L. A., Thomas, E. E., & Engel, S. (2010). Applying Toulmin: Teaching logical reasoning and argumentative writing. English Journal, 100(1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej201015444
Rorty, R. (1984). Solidarity or objectivity? Nanzan Review of American Studies, 6, 1–19.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (2008). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1979)
Slevin, J. F., & Young, A. (Eds.). (1996). Critical theory and the teaching of literature: Politics, curriculum, and pedagogy. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Southworth, J. (2022). Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of perspective-taking. Theory and Research in Education, 20(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221090853
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958)
Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4421-z
Wilner, A. (2020). Rethinking reading in college: An across-the-curriculum approach. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of English.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Khaoula EL Idrissi, Abdelouahd Bouzar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published by CJESS are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. This license permits third parties to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon the original work provided that the original work and source is appropriately cited.
