• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

WPA-L November 2005 Part 3

‹ WPA-L November 2005 part 2 | List of November Messages | WPA-L November 2005 part 4 ›

Carolyn,

This question is very easy to answer too simply, since the issue of transference is much larger than the common phenomenon of regression. So to the sources on regression in CompPile, I’d add this:

The Chicago institutes did a great deal to disseminate a variety of research showing that writing (and all other academic skills) cannot be learned once and for all; that experts in one field act like novices when they move to another; and that writing instruction and other kinds of instruction as well must be located in disciplines/discourse communities/local practices/choose your term.

On the other hand, the Chicago institutes also disseminated the Little Red Schoolhouse, which is based on the claim that there are features of texts which are common in all forms and discourses, that have predictable ranges of effects on readers, that are knowable by writers, and that can be consciously manipulated by writers in any context.

Not only does the approach in [Williams’] Style require such a position, but so does that in [Colomb and Williams] Craft of Research and Craft of Argument.

What makes these seemingly contradictory positions in fact mutually supportive are two additional facts:

1. The common features with predictable effects do not tell the whole story. Some of the most consequential features for readers’ responses are highly local in character and are entirely unpredictable for outsiders (such as novices). (Novices are also as likely to be struck by local but relatively insignificant features, which explains why they can so easily sound foolish trying to imitate an alien discourse—for example, new law students commonly use the trivial arcana of legal writing significantly more than any practicing lawyer or even than themselves a year later.)
2. The common features with predictable effects are often deployed differently in different discourses. For example, all readers process character-action sentences more easily (especially when the content is complex or difficult), but each discipline has its own set of preferred characters, so that character-action sentences with inappropriate characters will at least seem odd and will often be confusing.

So, it is true that a student taught only to write about literature in a way that satisfies literary critics will not thereby be able to write about social sciences in a way that satisfies social scientists. In fact, that teaching may well disable the student to a degree. (My “Disciplinary Secrets and the Apprentice Writer” (Download PDF version of ERIC document) was based on just such a disabling.)

On the other hand, a student who is taught to write in all the quirky ways that satisfy literary critics AND who is also taught to identify and manipulate the common features with predictable effects AND who is taught to expect new and different quirky ways of writing elsewhere—that student is far better off than the first.

What clearly cannot work is to try to create a generic, discourse-community-free zone for writing instruction.

If the question is why not start students writing about literature, we have to add another factor: students come to us with a history. Many of them are already likely to respond far more intuitively to other kinds of writing than to writing about literature—given the dominance of English classes in K-12 writing instruction, many are primed to shut down in the face of yet more literary-based writing instruction. And so they are far less likely to learn much of anything about writing.

[…]

[…]

I would add that, for the most part, writing about literature provides an opportunity to work with only one kind of evidence: words that are neither true nor false (at least in the ordinary senses of those words). In my judgment, first year students should start thinking about working with a variety of kinds of evidence in an argument—numbers, historical data, images, observations, and so on. In particular, it should be evidence that is questionable: where did the numbers come from? who recorded the historical event? how were the observations recorded? With literary texts, the evidence is, for the most part, given, stable, and reliable (except inside the imaginative world of the text). The interpretation of the given evidenced is the substance of the argument.

Finally, truth be told, from the student’s point of view, not much is at stake in being right or wrong about a literary text. Being wrong has no obvious cost (which is not to say it has no cost at all in the larger world of literary studies). But when they get Sonnet 73 wrong, the consequences do not ramify.

Joe and Greg make really important points here regarding general and local knowledge and focusing FYC only on writing in one domain (e.g., literature).

Research tells us that transfer requires “cueing retrieval” and “generalizability” of what’s being learned. If what’s being taught is cued strictly or primarily to the learning context, generalizability is lessened, and the possibility of transfer is diminished. Generalizability is enhanced if learners are provided with opportunities to put the knowledge into practice in differing situations—with different purposes, different audiences, different circumstances. One thing that we in Comp haven’t done a lot of is identify that general, context-crossing comp knowledge (strategies, skills, etc.) that Greg mentions. We’ve done some of it, but I don’t think we’ve come to consensus on a lot. Example: invention heuristics. We know that the classical topics are intended pretty much for and work best in situations focused on argumentation. But what about freewriting, clustering, brainstorming, the pentad, the tagmemeic grid or heuristics developed from tagmemeic invention? I’d claim that all of these heuristics can be highly productive but maybe not in every context. In which contexts do they work best?

Another way of thinking about this is, as Joe’s and Greg’s messages suggest, in terms of general and local knowledge. An interesting truth about the relationship between the two is that general knowledge becomes more specific with practice and increased learning. This can have advantages and disadvantages for us. And we need to explore how to address those advantages and disadvantages. But most important to note is that students need to learn how to move fluidly between general knowledge and local knowledge. Schunk (LEARNING THEORIES: AN EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVE), citing Perkins and Salomon, provides a good example: “Problem solving . . . is useful in much domain-specific learning; however, task conditions often require specific skills for the development of expertise. In many cases a merging of the two types of skills is needed. Research shows that expert problem solvers often use general strategies when they encounter unfamiliar problems and that asking general metacognitive questions (e.g., ‘What am I doing now?’, ‘Is it getting me anywhere?’) facilitates problem solving . . . . Transfer requires combining general strategies with factors such as instruction on self-monitoring and practice in specific contexts” (391).

An important conclusion that we can draw from all the research on transfer is that simply having students simply practice writing is not enough. Automaticity is important—that is, practicing elements of writing until they become automatic—but so is metacognition—the ability to become consciously aware of decision making during composing—and students must learn how to move—and when to move—along the continuum of conscious awareness between these two poles. Awareness of context, especially as an overarching understanding that is established initially and used as a monitoring measure of progress throughout, is, IMO, crucial. When purpose alters and/or audience shifts, the entire text AND composing process is affected.

‹ WPA-L November 2005 part 2 | List of November Messages | WPA-L November 2005 part 4 ›