While computers may pose new barriers to traditional models of transfer, one must also consider if these models, grounded on internal knowledge acquisition, are still relevant today. Social pressures and technological advancements have brought forth a transformation of what is valued in learning. No longer is our modern tech-savvy society valuing the accumulation of knowledge and wisdom. Instead, accessibility to knowledge is what is more heavily sought after. As Crowley and Hawhee assert, "computer programs are now available that serve the heuristic functions of ancient memory" (273). This is the trend happening with the Google effect. Today, we are valuing researchers who can find and access needed information, not the wise sage who holds a treasure trove of knowledge to impart. However, while knowledge being relocated and stored outside oneself may not seem that significant in the present, since it can still be found externally as needed, it poses lasting implications for future transfer.
As students rely more on external storage, internal stores may become less effective for transfer as the amount of storage decreases and the type of storage changes to holding cues rather than knowledge (Google effect). With weakened pathways and less content stored internally, students may struggle to engage in the many complex processes of transfer required for successful higher education learning, such as synthesis, consolidation, and critical thinking. In light of this, I position myself with Van Ittersum when he asserts, "Memory work, regardless of the tools or methods, remains a vital part of rhetorical activity, not something made obsolete by modern technology" (Van Ittersum np). When considering transfer in light of the effects of digital technology, it becomes clear that memory must again return to its position in the rhetorical canon in a fresh, technology-informed way. Lacey supports this line of argument when she asserts, “Contemporary rhetoric needs to rethink the new roles memory inhabits by looking at the ways digital memory is created, shared, reproduced, and utilized" (Lacey, dissertation, 2). We cannot understand how memory fits into modern pedagogy without sustained investigation of the effects of technology on transfer.
Technology poses barriers to some aspects of transfer. Our memories are, over time, becoming an intricate file system of retrieval cues without context which can pose significant problems for the future of transfer. Without some facilitative step, such as writing, transfer becomes less probable in the digital age. However, because writing causes students to bring new and prior knowledge into working memory to begin processing, writing initiates and facilitates the process of transfer. Writing that works to strengthen neuronal pathways (through processes such as reflection), synthesize new information (encoding, consolidation), and draw connections between prior and new knowledge (remaking) can bridge the void of external knowledge disconnection. This positions writing as a viable tool for promoting transfer in the digital age. Why is the kind of writing we do in composition classes important for college students and disciplines across the university? It is because we are composing more than a mere written or digital text; we are composing memory. We are restructuring and recontextualizing prior knowledge, consolidating and synthesizing it with new knowledge, then “rewriting” it to represent new ideas, thoughts, and interpretations, as well as revive old ones. Composing memory practices offer a way to repackage what we know as composition instructors to help students promote transfer and thrive in the digital age.
While this research has begun the discussion over the role of memory in teaching for transfer in the digital age, it is far from being conclusive in its scope. As is typical in research, examining one question opens the way for many others. Future research could study the effects of group memory on transfer, the implications of accessibility to knowledge stored on external devices, how technology might be used to better support learning transfer, the effect of emotional affect on memory and transfer, or continue the discussion of working memory, technology, and transfer. While I have presented pedagogy for strengthening memory and transfer, there is much more to be learned about the many complex processes of memory, transfer, and how they intersect with digital technology in the university.
When I began this research, I wanted to understand how technological memory storage, versus internal memory storage, changes cognition and thus impacts transfer. But, research is a journey that is often hard to predict at the outset. I did not find, as I originally expected, that technology is inherently good or bad for transfer. Instead, I found that technology offered many benefits to learning, but also posed numerous barriers to transfer. I also did not find a new pedagogical tool for use in composition classrooms in the digital age. Rather, what I found was an accumulation of evidence substantiating the further use of certain pedagogical ideas in the composition classroom. In some cases, they were ideas that have been in practice and performing well but needed modification. Others that have been discarded due to seeming irrelevance need to be revived and repackaged for the modern classroom (e.g., memorization work, receiving). Considering the potential barriers created by digital technology, these pedagogical methods were found to combat many of the effects of digital ecological change on student learning, memory, and ability to transfer knowledge into new contexts. It is my hope that this research will instigate further discussion about the intersections of memory, transfer, and technology and what that ultimately means in the classroom. Regardless of these new barriers in learning, it would serve us well to remember that memory is not only a neurological function but also a compositional activity.
As students rely more on external storage, internal stores may become less effective for transfer as the amount of storage decreases and the type of storage changes to holding cues rather than knowledge (Google effect). With weakened pathways and less content stored internally, students may struggle to engage in the many complex processes of transfer required for successful higher education learning, such as synthesis, consolidation, and critical thinking. In light of this, I position myself with Van Ittersum when he asserts, "Memory work, regardless of the tools or methods, remains a vital part of rhetorical activity, not something made obsolete by modern technology" (Van Ittersum np). When considering transfer in light of the effects of digital technology, it becomes clear that memory must again return to its position in the rhetorical canon in a fresh, technology-informed way. Lacey supports this line of argument when she asserts, “Contemporary rhetoric needs to rethink the new roles memory inhabits by looking at the ways digital memory is created, shared, reproduced, and utilized" (Lacey, dissertation, 2). We cannot understand how memory fits into modern pedagogy without sustained investigation of the effects of technology on transfer.
Technology poses barriers to some aspects of transfer. Our memories are, over time, becoming an intricate file system of retrieval cues without context which can pose significant problems for the future of transfer. Without some facilitative step, such as writing, transfer becomes less probable in the digital age. However, because writing causes students to bring new and prior knowledge into working memory to begin processing, writing initiates and facilitates the process of transfer. Writing that works to strengthen neuronal pathways (through processes such as reflection), synthesize new information (encoding, consolidation), and draw connections between prior and new knowledge (remaking) can bridge the void of external knowledge disconnection. This positions writing as a viable tool for promoting transfer in the digital age. Why is the kind of writing we do in composition classes important for college students and disciplines across the university? It is because we are composing more than a mere written or digital text; we are composing memory. We are restructuring and recontextualizing prior knowledge, consolidating and synthesizing it with new knowledge, then “rewriting” it to represent new ideas, thoughts, and interpretations, as well as revive old ones. Composing memory practices offer a way to repackage what we know as composition instructors to help students promote transfer and thrive in the digital age.
While this research has begun the discussion over the role of memory in teaching for transfer in the digital age, it is far from being conclusive in its scope. As is typical in research, examining one question opens the way for many others. Future research could study the effects of group memory on transfer, the implications of accessibility to knowledge stored on external devices, how technology might be used to better support learning transfer, the effect of emotional affect on memory and transfer, or continue the discussion of working memory, technology, and transfer. While I have presented pedagogy for strengthening memory and transfer, there is much more to be learned about the many complex processes of memory, transfer, and how they intersect with digital technology in the university.
When I began this research, I wanted to understand how technological memory storage, versus internal memory storage, changes cognition and thus impacts transfer. But, research is a journey that is often hard to predict at the outset. I did not find, as I originally expected, that technology is inherently good or bad for transfer. Instead, I found that technology offered many benefits to learning, but also posed numerous barriers to transfer. I also did not find a new pedagogical tool for use in composition classrooms in the digital age. Rather, what I found was an accumulation of evidence substantiating the further use of certain pedagogical ideas in the composition classroom. In some cases, they were ideas that have been in practice and performing well but needed modification. Others that have been discarded due to seeming irrelevance need to be revived and repackaged for the modern classroom (e.g., memorization work, receiving). Considering the potential barriers created by digital technology, these pedagogical methods were found to combat many of the effects of digital ecological change on student learning, memory, and ability to transfer knowledge into new contexts. It is my hope that this research will instigate further discussion about the intersections of memory, transfer, and technology and what that ultimately means in the classroom. Regardless of these new barriers in learning, it would serve us well to remember that memory is not only a neurological function but also a compositional activity.