INFORMING PEDAGOGY
Before we can discuss pedagogical implications and applications, it is important to consider four theories in transfer studies that bear upon the pedagogical activities which I believe will aid transfer in the digital age: rhetorical genre theory, activity theory, situated learning, and knowledge domains. Doug Brent, in his article “Transfer, Transformation, and Rhetorical Knowledge,” cites three of these as major influences in transfer studies, including rhetorical genre studies, activity theory, and situated learning (396). I would also add Beaufort's five knowledge domains as important for developing pedagogy aimed at facilitating transfer in a technologically-rich environment. These four frameworks offer unique lenses from which to view transfer and they also affirm the physiological viewpoint used for this study.
Rhetorical Genre Theory
Rhetorical Genre Theory, articulated first by Miller in 1984, refers to “active responses which arise repeatedly in varied but essentially similar forms, genres acquire a familiar set of features” (Brent 399). This theory explains how repeated actions become mutually accepted genres which offer a deeper understanding of how knowledge must be substantially transformed to meet the accepted criteria of new generic contexts. The major problem scholars have found with this theory is that genres are “deeply bound within particular exigencies” and, as such, pose difficulty when teaching out of context (Brent 399). Wardle adds that genre theory is further complicated by “mutt genres” which “mimic” real genres and in FYC tend to produce vague purposes and audiences making it unrealistic to practice writing in these forms (774). Despite the possible difficulty in teaching genre in the classroom, Rhetorical Genre Theory does enlighten our understanding of transfer and memory. Specifically, genre is engaged in contexts and experiences which naturally provide the stimulus for low-road transfer via episodic memory. While semantic memory and high-road transfer may be the bigger aim, neurological studies have found that semantic memory is made using the building blocks from episodic memory. In other words, without understanding genre and having context-rich experiences, it may be difficult for students to build the larger conceptualizations which may transfer out of those specific genres and contexts. In today's digitally-rich environment, technology can provide students with opportunities to form the specific and context-rich experiences, through social networks and interactive online elements, that are necessary for low-road transfer. However, low-road transfer can take more time than a semester allows. In order to make the use of technology truly effective for facilitating transfer, one may consider pairing it with reflective writing that asks students to draw out the larger generalizations and conceptualizations required for high-road transfer. A double-sided approach can be most effective, and potentially speed up the process of transfer, by using episodic experiences and memory to build the larger, more generalized, semantic memories which is exactly what reflective writing asks students to do (Eichenbaum 334). However, the reliance of genres on context has caused scholars to look for other theories which may place greater emphasis on systems.
Activity Theory and Situated Learning
(Engestrom 1987, Daniels 2001)
Viewing communities of practice as activity systems defines the structure in which genres are made and exist. Brent highlights the value of activity theory when he writes, “Activity theory perspective…gives us a richer way of describing rhetorical exigencies as arising from activities and activity systems, and from the social motives behind them” (399). While there are definitely advantages to viewing genres in systems (such as clarity of expectations, social influence, and community), some scholars are concerned that learning to write in one system will not necessarily transfer to another. David Russell combines Vygotskian activity theory with genre theory to show how genres can be meaningful within their own activity system, but movement between systems can be difficult because it requires students to reconstruct their identities. Jessie Moore agrees with Russell that “students inhabit multiple-often conflicting—activity systems.” Tuomi-Grohn, Engestrom, and Young caution, “This line of thinking carried to its logical conclusion, can lead us to worry whether formal education has any value at all” (Brent 403). Other scholars are concerned that activity theory takes the power for transfer from the learner and places it on the system. These concerns include a lack of acknowledgment over the learners influence (Russell), a shifting focus from the learner to the system (Driscoll and Wells), and the learners viewed as products of systems rather than from a position of power as “agents of integration” (Nowacek). These concerns are valid in response to Bergmann’s and Zepernick’s findings that students perceive themselves “as agents of their own learning, rather than as recipients of an imposed curriculum” (124). Activity theorists, however, argue that the individual and activity system is interconnected and can only be understood when considered together (Wardle). In this study of memory and transfer (especially in the context of the digital age), I position myself with Wardle that activity systems matter for learning and transfer. However, I do not feel that an activity systems approach necessarily negates students individual agency in learning. In order to truly understand the many activities involved in transfer one must consider the systems in which the student engages. These systems are likely to have built the very structures which comprise the students individual memory stores. Without allowing students to reflect on the systems in which they are engaged, it decontextualizes learning and makes it difficult to connect new learning to any prior knowledge (and experiences) making learning less meaningful and transfer of any type more difficult.
Activity systems become more important in the digital age as students are participating more and more in online social networks, communities of discourse, and engaging in numerous activities via the internet. Viewing the computer and online digital environments as activity systems, which provide the user with access to tools, norms, rules, communities, and roles, can help us to understand the profound effects of student's engagement with digital technology and how that can impact learning. Activity Theory views computer technology as a tool or semiotic resource which acts as a contributing element for creating meaning. Carey Jewitt explains this relationship best when she writes, "There is a fundamental connection between external and inner signs and this highlights the importance of semiotic resources for learning" (Jewitt 77). In a sense, the digital tools offered by computer technology shape students' conception of "what is possible and what is useful in their knowledge work" (Van Ittersum np). Without consideration of the digital tools and social networks that students are engaged in online, we can hardly expect to facilitate transfer in the classroom. Helping students to reflect on these tools and experiences is critical for facilitating the sort of semantic memory construction that will arguably become more important during a time when episodic experiences prevail. In other words, while many digital experiences are episodic in nature, viewing these digital interactions through an activity systems lens can help students to step back from the individual experiences and begin to formulate the larger conceptualizations which can facilitate high-road transfer. As Van Ittersum writes, "When mediated activity is the focus of writing research, we can see that memory is more than memorization and recall, and that it may be understood as a dynamic process of storing, accessing, and mobilizing information within complex systems of tools, environments, situations, and people" (np).
Some scholars (Brent, Moore, Geeno, Smith) push activity theory further and draw upon a theory of situated knowledge to gain a deeper understanding of transfer. In this view, learners can only learn from being situated in the actual context. To Brent, “situated learning suggests that highly context dependent skills such as rhetorical performance are best learned, perhaps can only be learned, when learners are immersed in the real context in which such skills must be performed on a daily basis” (400). According to a neuroscience perspective this theory is correct, at least to an extent, since the greater the context involved in learning, the greater opportunity present for making connections in stored memory and accessing cues for retrieval. The greater the likelihood of storing memory and accessing retrieval cues, the more likely it becomes that transfer will occur. However, it is not necessarily impossible to learn out of context (as Brent argues may be the case), although certainly learning becomes more challenging since there is decreased sensory reception, emotional connection, and connectivity to prior knowledge and events when learning is not contextualized. In this light, technology poses some real advantages in the classroom as it offers a virtual context, network, and experience from which students can situate knowledge upon. In a sense, technology assists in bringing context to the classroom.
Knowledge Domains
Beaufort describes her model as “five overlapping yet distinct domains of situated knowledge entailed in acts of writing: discourse community knowledge, subject-matter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing process knowledge” (18). According to this model, expert writers draw upon (and access) these domains when retrieving information to aid in composition. As such, it is the information stored in these domains that allows students to synthesize, recontextualize, and adapt prior knowledge to new knowledge and contexts through the use of retrieval cues. This is an important concept for considering how memory works to facilitate transfer since research on memory has shown that as long-term storage increases (allowing for greater connectivity) students have access to more points of entry for situating new knowledge, greater opportunity for retrieval cues, and become less limited to the restrictions of short term memory capacity (which is significantly lower than long-term capacity). Debra McCutcheon reminds us of this relationship when she writes, "Initially, operations of linguistic processes and other processes involving writing-relevant knowledge are constrained by traditional working memory (or "short-term working memory," STWM), but as linguistic skill and writing-relevant knowledge increase, eventually the constraints of STWM give way to more expansive long-term working memory resources" (52). McCutcheon's research shows that as students gain more domain knowledge they have greater ability to access long-term schemas to assist in the aspects of writing production, thus being less restricted by short-term working memory constrictions. As we increase domain knowledge, not only are we assisting students with writing specific tasks, we are simultaneously improving their ability to access and thus transfer knowledge, experiences, and ideas stored in long-term memory.
With these theories in mind, along with the basic understanding of memory, as already discussed, and the effects of technology imposed barriers on memory, I will address how we can take these understandings and use them to create solutions for teaching transfer in the composition classroom.
Rhetorical Genre Theory
Rhetorical Genre Theory, articulated first by Miller in 1984, refers to “active responses which arise repeatedly in varied but essentially similar forms, genres acquire a familiar set of features” (Brent 399). This theory explains how repeated actions become mutually accepted genres which offer a deeper understanding of how knowledge must be substantially transformed to meet the accepted criteria of new generic contexts. The major problem scholars have found with this theory is that genres are “deeply bound within particular exigencies” and, as such, pose difficulty when teaching out of context (Brent 399). Wardle adds that genre theory is further complicated by “mutt genres” which “mimic” real genres and in FYC tend to produce vague purposes and audiences making it unrealistic to practice writing in these forms (774). Despite the possible difficulty in teaching genre in the classroom, Rhetorical Genre Theory does enlighten our understanding of transfer and memory. Specifically, genre is engaged in contexts and experiences which naturally provide the stimulus for low-road transfer via episodic memory. While semantic memory and high-road transfer may be the bigger aim, neurological studies have found that semantic memory is made using the building blocks from episodic memory. In other words, without understanding genre and having context-rich experiences, it may be difficult for students to build the larger conceptualizations which may transfer out of those specific genres and contexts. In today's digitally-rich environment, technology can provide students with opportunities to form the specific and context-rich experiences, through social networks and interactive online elements, that are necessary for low-road transfer. However, low-road transfer can take more time than a semester allows. In order to make the use of technology truly effective for facilitating transfer, one may consider pairing it with reflective writing that asks students to draw out the larger generalizations and conceptualizations required for high-road transfer. A double-sided approach can be most effective, and potentially speed up the process of transfer, by using episodic experiences and memory to build the larger, more generalized, semantic memories which is exactly what reflective writing asks students to do (Eichenbaum 334). However, the reliance of genres on context has caused scholars to look for other theories which may place greater emphasis on systems.
Activity Theory and Situated Learning
(Engestrom 1987, Daniels 2001)
Viewing communities of practice as activity systems defines the structure in which genres are made and exist. Brent highlights the value of activity theory when he writes, “Activity theory perspective…gives us a richer way of describing rhetorical exigencies as arising from activities and activity systems, and from the social motives behind them” (399). While there are definitely advantages to viewing genres in systems (such as clarity of expectations, social influence, and community), some scholars are concerned that learning to write in one system will not necessarily transfer to another. David Russell combines Vygotskian activity theory with genre theory to show how genres can be meaningful within their own activity system, but movement between systems can be difficult because it requires students to reconstruct their identities. Jessie Moore agrees with Russell that “students inhabit multiple-often conflicting—activity systems.” Tuomi-Grohn, Engestrom, and Young caution, “This line of thinking carried to its logical conclusion, can lead us to worry whether formal education has any value at all” (Brent 403). Other scholars are concerned that activity theory takes the power for transfer from the learner and places it on the system. These concerns include a lack of acknowledgment over the learners influence (Russell), a shifting focus from the learner to the system (Driscoll and Wells), and the learners viewed as products of systems rather than from a position of power as “agents of integration” (Nowacek). These concerns are valid in response to Bergmann’s and Zepernick’s findings that students perceive themselves “as agents of their own learning, rather than as recipients of an imposed curriculum” (124). Activity theorists, however, argue that the individual and activity system is interconnected and can only be understood when considered together (Wardle). In this study of memory and transfer (especially in the context of the digital age), I position myself with Wardle that activity systems matter for learning and transfer. However, I do not feel that an activity systems approach necessarily negates students individual agency in learning. In order to truly understand the many activities involved in transfer one must consider the systems in which the student engages. These systems are likely to have built the very structures which comprise the students individual memory stores. Without allowing students to reflect on the systems in which they are engaged, it decontextualizes learning and makes it difficult to connect new learning to any prior knowledge (and experiences) making learning less meaningful and transfer of any type more difficult.
Activity systems become more important in the digital age as students are participating more and more in online social networks, communities of discourse, and engaging in numerous activities via the internet. Viewing the computer and online digital environments as activity systems, which provide the user with access to tools, norms, rules, communities, and roles, can help us to understand the profound effects of student's engagement with digital technology and how that can impact learning. Activity Theory views computer technology as a tool or semiotic resource which acts as a contributing element for creating meaning. Carey Jewitt explains this relationship best when she writes, "There is a fundamental connection between external and inner signs and this highlights the importance of semiotic resources for learning" (Jewitt 77). In a sense, the digital tools offered by computer technology shape students' conception of "what is possible and what is useful in their knowledge work" (Van Ittersum np). Without consideration of the digital tools and social networks that students are engaged in online, we can hardly expect to facilitate transfer in the classroom. Helping students to reflect on these tools and experiences is critical for facilitating the sort of semantic memory construction that will arguably become more important during a time when episodic experiences prevail. In other words, while many digital experiences are episodic in nature, viewing these digital interactions through an activity systems lens can help students to step back from the individual experiences and begin to formulate the larger conceptualizations which can facilitate high-road transfer. As Van Ittersum writes, "When mediated activity is the focus of writing research, we can see that memory is more than memorization and recall, and that it may be understood as a dynamic process of storing, accessing, and mobilizing information within complex systems of tools, environments, situations, and people" (np).
Some scholars (Brent, Moore, Geeno, Smith) push activity theory further and draw upon a theory of situated knowledge to gain a deeper understanding of transfer. In this view, learners can only learn from being situated in the actual context. To Brent, “situated learning suggests that highly context dependent skills such as rhetorical performance are best learned, perhaps can only be learned, when learners are immersed in the real context in which such skills must be performed on a daily basis” (400). According to a neuroscience perspective this theory is correct, at least to an extent, since the greater the context involved in learning, the greater opportunity present for making connections in stored memory and accessing cues for retrieval. The greater the likelihood of storing memory and accessing retrieval cues, the more likely it becomes that transfer will occur. However, it is not necessarily impossible to learn out of context (as Brent argues may be the case), although certainly learning becomes more challenging since there is decreased sensory reception, emotional connection, and connectivity to prior knowledge and events when learning is not contextualized. In this light, technology poses some real advantages in the classroom as it offers a virtual context, network, and experience from which students can situate knowledge upon. In a sense, technology assists in bringing context to the classroom.
Knowledge Domains
Beaufort describes her model as “five overlapping yet distinct domains of situated knowledge entailed in acts of writing: discourse community knowledge, subject-matter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and writing process knowledge” (18). According to this model, expert writers draw upon (and access) these domains when retrieving information to aid in composition. As such, it is the information stored in these domains that allows students to synthesize, recontextualize, and adapt prior knowledge to new knowledge and contexts through the use of retrieval cues. This is an important concept for considering how memory works to facilitate transfer since research on memory has shown that as long-term storage increases (allowing for greater connectivity) students have access to more points of entry for situating new knowledge, greater opportunity for retrieval cues, and become less limited to the restrictions of short term memory capacity (which is significantly lower than long-term capacity). Debra McCutcheon reminds us of this relationship when she writes, "Initially, operations of linguistic processes and other processes involving writing-relevant knowledge are constrained by traditional working memory (or "short-term working memory," STWM), but as linguistic skill and writing-relevant knowledge increase, eventually the constraints of STWM give way to more expansive long-term working memory resources" (52). McCutcheon's research shows that as students gain more domain knowledge they have greater ability to access long-term schemas to assist in the aspects of writing production, thus being less restricted by short-term working memory constrictions. As we increase domain knowledge, not only are we assisting students with writing specific tasks, we are simultaneously improving their ability to access and thus transfer knowledge, experiences, and ideas stored in long-term memory.
With these theories in mind, along with the basic understanding of memory, as already discussed, and the effects of technology imposed barriers on memory, I will address how we can take these understandings and use them to create solutions for teaching transfer in the composition classroom.