From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 12 02:20:52 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Chris Anson) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:20:52 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! Message-ID: <60E043C2-6D1F-4D06-9F12-D9B082B77E55@ncsu.edu> --Apple-Mail-30-799455196 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed TeachingComp Listers: Now that summer is officially over, it's time to start up our =20 TeachingComp list for the new academic year. Anne Harvey Kilburn and =20 I have arranged for a terrific new slate of module leaders on =20 interesting topics, and we're looking forward to some engaging and =20 useful discussions. For those new to the list, here's how it works. Around the start of =20 each month, I introduce a new module and its creator(s). Modules are =20 located at the TeachingComp Web site: http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/=20 english/tc/ Typically, the modules present a topic, project, or =20 issue that the module leader has some expertise in, along with a set =20 of discussion questions, links to resources, bibliographies, and the =20 like. The module serves as the prompt for the subsequent discussion, =20 which takes place on this list. Module leaders participate in the =20 discussion, adding further perspectives and information. You can manage your own listserv settings by following the links at =20 the bottom of every list post. Because list traffic ebbs and flows =20 with most campus breaks (including the summer), most people just =20 leave themselves subscribed. List traffic never gets annoyingly heavy. Now for our September module=97a little late because of some technical =20= issues, but we'll extend it a few days into October. A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of attending a talk by =20 Sheila Tobias, a noted science educator interested in why some people =20= have trouble learning or performing well in certain subjects. Tobias =20 conducted several fascinating experiments. She recruited faculty in =20 various disciplines to attend classes in science and mathematics, and =20= then studied their learning processes and responses to lectures, =20 readings, and discussions. She did the same with faculty in the =20 sciences, asking them to enroll in literature courses in the =20 humanistic tradition (e.g., Chaucer). The results showed how various =20 disciplinary frameworks made it difficult for the faculty to =20 "transfer" their knowledge and skills to the new domain. One physics =20 professor noted that in his field, teaching often involves "building =20 a knowledge structure to lead the students somewhere," but that in =20 disciplines in the humanities, "it is often the practice to present =20 one major idea and then toy with it and kick it around." Science =20 faculty who enrolled in the Chaucer and Wordsworth course found the =20 use of language to be unfamiliar. The lecturers "just talked" and =20 wrote nothing on the board=97no diagrams, no tables, not even lists of =20= key concepts. Class discussions seemed "unpredictable." When one of =20 the teachers finally did write a single word on the board, the class =20 of science faculty cheered. When the participants had to write two =20 short papers, they were at first bewildered. "You knew something was =20 due tomorrow, but you didn't know quite what it was supposed to be =20 about," said organic chemist Jon Clardy. "It was unsettlingly vague." Tobias's experiments demonstrated the difficulty that even experts =20 have "transferring" their knowledge and abilities from one domain to =20 another. In writing, this challenge can be especially acute, as =20 students move across courses and from college into the work force. =20 Yet our dominant model of writing ability assumes that once students =20 have "learned to write well," they can easily adapt to new contexts. =20 "Why didn't they get this in Comp. 101?", we're often asked. Or the =20 blame is passed down further: "What the heck were they doing in high =20 school, anyway?" As this month's module leaders Tiane Donahue and Elizabeth Wardle =20 suggest, the problem of "transfer" needs continued research in =20 composition; but we can learn much from broader studies of the =20 transfer of knowledge. What assumptions are we making about what =20 students can take from our writing courses and put to use elsewhere? =20 Are there certain kinds of knowledge or meta-knowledge that serve =20 them well in new contexts? Are there certain kinds of knowledge and =20 experience that they need to "unlearn" elsewhere? Visit Tiane and =20 Elizabeth's module for an introduction and resources, then them come =20 back here to talk. http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/english/tc/ Tiane Donahue is Associate Professor and Director of the Composition =20 Program at the University of Maine-Farmington. She is an active =20 member of the THEODILE research group at l=92Universit=E9 de Lille III =20= (Th=E9orie et Didactique de la Lecture-Ecriture). Her research has =20 focused on discourse analysis of student text using French functional =20= linguistics, genre analysis, and writing work in international =20 contexts. She is collecting data in a longitudinal study (2004-2008) =20 of thirty students at the University of Maine-Farmington and is =20 studying the way these students negotiate new contexts and use =20 writing knowledge across experiences. Tiane is also a founding member =20= of the Maine Composition Coalition. Elizabeth Wardle is Assistant Professor, Director of Writing =20 Programs, and Internship Coordinator in the Department of English at =20 the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio. She received her PhD in =20 Rhetoric and Professional Communication from Iowa State University in =20= 2003. She teaches first-year composition, medical writing, business =20 communication, technical writing, rhetorical criticism, composition =20 theory, research methods in rhetoric and composition, and rhetoric of =20= science. Her research interests focus on disciplinarity, genre =20 theory, and writing-related knowledge transfer. She is currently in =20 the last year of a four-year study examining writing-related transfer =20= at the University of Dayton. Preliminary results describing the first =20= two years of the study will be published in the WPA Journal this fall. Again, welcome back. Chris Anson Moderator --=20 Chris M. Anson [Web site] University Distinguished Professor Director, Campus Writing & Speaking Program Box 8105, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8105 (919) 513-4080 --Apple-Mail-30-799455196 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
TeachingComp Listers:

Now that summer is officially over, it's time to = start up our TeachingComp list for the new academic year. Anne Harvey = Kilburn and I have arranged for a terrific new slate of module leaders = on interesting topics, and we're looking forward to some engaging and = useful discussions.
=A0
For those new to the list, here's how it works. = Around the start of each month, I introduce a new module and its = creator(s). Modules are located at the TeachingComp Web site: http://www.mhhe.com/so= cscience/english/tc/=A0 = Typically, the modules present a topic, project, or issue that = the module leader has some expertise in, along with a set of discussion = questions, links to resources, bibliographies, and the like. The module = serves as the prompt for the subsequent discussion, which takes place on = this list. Module leaders participate in the discussion, adding further = perspectives and information.
=A0
You can = manage your own listserv settings by following the links at the bottom = of every list post. Because list traffic ebbs and flows with most campus = breaks (including the summer), most people just leave themselves = subscribed. List traffic never gets annoyingly = heavy.
=A0
Now for our September module=97a little late because = of some technical issues, but we'll extend it a few days into = October.
=A0
A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of = attending a talk by Sheila Tobias, a noted science educator interested = in why some people have trouble learning or performing well in certain = subjects. Tobias conducted several fascinating experiments. She = recruited faculty in various disciplines to attend classes in science = and mathematics, and then studied their learning processes and responses = to lectures, readings, and discussions. She did the same with faculty in = the sciences, asking them to enroll in literature courses in the = humanistic tradition (e.g., Chaucer). The results showed how various = disciplinary frameworks made it difficult for the faculty to "transfer" = their knowledge and skills to the new domain. One physics professor = noted that in his field, teaching often involves "building a knowledge = structure to lead the students somewhere," but that in disciplines in = the humanities, "it is often the practice to present one major idea and = then toy with it and kick it around." Science faculty who enrolled in = the Chaucer and Wordsworth course found the use of language to be = unfamiliar. The lecturers "just talked" and wrote nothing on the = board=97no diagrams, no tables, not even lists of key concepts. Class = discussions seemed "unpredictable." When one of the teachers finally did = write a single word on the board, the class of science faculty cheered. = When the participants had to write two short papers, they were at first = bewildered. "You knew something was due tomorrow, but you didn't know = quite what it was supposed to be about," said organic chemist Jon = Clardy. "It was unsettlingly vague."
=A0
Tobias's = experiments demonstrated the difficulty that even experts have = "transferring" their knowledge and abilities from one domain to another. = In writing, this challenge can be especially acute, as students move = across courses and from college into the work force. Yet our dominant = model of writing ability assumes that once students have "learned to = write well," they can easily adapt to new contexts. "Why didn't they get = this in Comp. 101?", we're often asked. Or the blame is passed down = further: "What the heck were they doing in high school, = anyway?"=A0
=A0
As this month's module leaders Tiane Donahue and = Elizabeth Wardle suggest, the problem of "transfer" needs continued = research in composition; but we can learn much from broader studies of = the transfer of knowledge. What assumptions are we making about what = students can take from our writing courses and put to use elsewhere? Are = there certain kinds of knowledge or meta-knowledge that serve them well = in new contexts? Are there certain kinds of knowledge and experience = that they need to "unlearn" elsewhere? Visit Tiane and Elizabeth's = module for an introduction and resources, then them come back here to = talk. http://www.mhhe.com/so= cscience/english/tc/
=A0
Tiane = Donahue is Associate Professor and Director of the Composition Program = at the University of Maine-Farmington. She is an active member of the = THEODILE research group at l=92Universit=E9 de Lille III (Th=E9orie et = Didactique de la Lecture-Ecriture). Her research has focused on = discourse analysis of student text using French functional linguistics, = genre analysis, and writing work in international contexts. She is = collecting data in a longitudinal study (2004-2008) of thirty students = at the University of Maine-Farmington and is studying the way these = students negotiate new contexts and use writing knowledge across = experiences. Tiane is also a founding member of the Maine Composition = Coalition.
=A0
Elizabeth Wardle is Assistant Professor, Director = of Writing Programs, and Internship Coordinator in the Department of = English at the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio. She received her = PhD in Rhetoric and Professional Communication from Iowa State = University in 2003. She teaches first-year composition, medical writing, = business communication, technical writing, rhetorical criticism, = composition theory, research methods in rhetoric and composition, and = rhetoric of science. Her research interests focus on disciplinarity, = genre theory, and writing-related knowledge transfer. She is currently = in the last year of a four-year study examining writing-related transfer = at the University of Dayton. Preliminary results describing the first = two years of the study will be published in the WPA Journal this fall. =
=A0
Again, welcome back.
=A0
Chris = Anson
Moderator








--=A0
Chris = M. Anson=A0[Web = site]
University Distinguished Professor
Director,=A0Campus Writing & Speaking Program
Box = 8105,=A0North Carolina State University=A0
Raleigh, NC=A0 = 27695-8105=A0
(919) 513-4080

= --Apple-Mail-30-799455196-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 12 04:11:14 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Richard Haswell) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:11:14 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! In-Reply-To: <60E043C2-6D1F-4D06-9F12-D9B082B77E55@ncsu.edu> Message-ID: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3272393481_1082665 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Tiane and Elizabeth, An extremely useful module. I appreciate the way you have synopsized a passel of research. It offers a good springboard for discussion and, we all hope, will play its part in pushing people to further inquiry. Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and that, for me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I haven=B9t really put it this way to myself. What=B9s so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? We can=B9t control the new contexts that our students will will choose in the future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be bound to invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, skills which they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate maybe is too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just prove a hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new context. So maybe we ought to include in our courses a kind of disclaimer: Be willing, students, to discard any skill I=B9ve taught. Maybe a strategy we should teach is strategic forgetting. I=B9m reminded again=8Bfortunately it keeps happening=8Bof Wordsworth=B9s venerable insight: If you=B9ve forgotten something, it probably isn=B9t important. Rich Haswell --B_3272393481_1082665 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! Tiane and Eliza= beth,

An extremely useful module. I appreciate the way you have synopsized a pass= el of research. It offers a good springboard for discussion and, we all hope= , will play its part in pushing people to further inquiry.

Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and that, for m= e, raises a weird kind of question. At least I haven’t really put it t= his way to myself. What’s so bad about NOT transferring writing skills= ?

We can’t control the new contexts that our students will will choose = in the future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be bo= und to invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, skills= which they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate mayb= e is too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just prov= e a hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new co= ntext.

So maybe we ought to include in our courses a kind of disclaimer: Be willin= g, students, to discard any skill I’ve taught. Maybe a strategy we sho= uld teach is strategic forgetting.

I’m reminded again—fortunately it keeps happening—of Word= sworth’s venerable insight: If you’ve forgotten something, it pr= obably isn’t important.

Rich Haswell

 --B_3272393481_1082665-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 12 05:07:21 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Patricia Freitag Ericsson) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:07:21 -0700 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: --============_-1022552452==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I'm surprised (but probably shouldn't be) at how close the 9 elements of "Transfer is more likely to occur when" are to the "Active Learning Principles" in Gee's What Video Games Have to Teach Us . . . I felt like I was re-reading the Gee Principles. Patty -- Patricia Freitag Ericsson, PhD Director, Digital Technology and Culture Program Assistant Professor, Department of English Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164 ericsson@wsu.edu --============_-1022552452==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back!
I'm surprised (but probably shouldn't be) at how close the 9 elements of "Transfer is more likely to occur when" are to the "Active Learning Principles" in Gee's What Video Games Have to Teach Us . . .   I felt like I was re-reading the Gee Principles. 

Patty
--


Patricia Freitag Ericsson, PhD
Director, Digital Technology and Culture Program
Assistant Professor, Department of English
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164
ericsson@wsu.edu
--============_-1022552452==_ma============-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 12 18:00:19 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Alvaro Mena) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:00:19 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Contents of Teaching_Composition digest Message-ID: <3fee30990709121000vc5c9f45udcb0285ad964169f@mail.gmail.com> ------=_Part_12245_10435886.1189616419143 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline -- MENA ------=_Part_12245_10435886.1189616419143 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

--
MENA ------=_Part_12245_10435886.1189616419143-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 12 22:13:44 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:13:44 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00749F3485257354_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UmljaCwNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgeW91ciBxdWVzdGlvbi4gT25lIGlzc3VlIHlvdXIgcXVlc3Rpb24g cmFpc2VzIGlzIHRoZSANCnBvc3NpYmlsaXR5IG9mIGJhZCB0cmFuc2Zlci4gV2hhdCBoYXBwZW5z IHdoZW4gc3R1ZGVudHMgKmRvKiB0cnkgdG8gdXNlIA0Kd2hhdCB0aGV5J3ZlIGxlYXJuZWQtLWR1 dGlmdWxseSwgYXMgeW91IHNheS0tYW5kIGdldCB0aGluZ3MgYWxsIHdyb25nIGFzIGEgDQpyZXN1 bHQ/IFdlJ3ZlIGFsbCBzZWVuIHRoaXMtLXRoZXkgd3JpdGUgNSBwYXJhZ3JhcGhzIGV2ZW4gdGhv dWdoIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSANCmEgbG90IG1vcmUgdG8gc2F5IG9yIHRoZXkgY3JhbSBhIHJlYWxseSBj b21wbGljYXRlZCB0aGVzaXMgaW50byBvbmUgDQpzZW50ZW5jZS0tYmVjYXVzZSB0aGF0IGlzIHdo YXQgdGhleSB3ZXJlIHRhdWdodCB0byBkby4gT3IsIGxlc3Mgb2J2aW91c2x5LCANCnRoZXkgdXNl ICJzY2hvb2wgc3RyYXRlZ2llcyIgZm9yIGxlYXJuaW5nIHdoZW4gdGhvc2UganVzdCBkb24ndCB3 b3JrIGluIA0KdGhlIHdvcmtwbGFjZS4NCg0KVGhhdCdzIHdoeSwgSSB0aGluaywgdGhlIGtpbmRz IG9mIHRoaW5ncyB0aGF0IHJlYWxseSBkbyB0cmFuc2ZlciBhY3Jvc3MgDQphbGwgc2l0dWF0aW9u cyBmcm9tIHdyaXRpbmcgY2xhc3NlcyBhcmUgZmV3IGluIG51bWJlcjogTWF5YmUgcmhldG9yaWNh bCANCmF3YXJlbmVzcywgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBvZiBkcmFmdGluZy9wcm9jZXNzLCBnZW5yZSBh d2FyZW5lc3MsIGFuZCANCnNlbGYtcmVmbGVjdGlvbi4gTW9zdCBvdGhlciB0aGluZ3Mgd2UgdGVh Y2ggYWJzb2x1dGVseSByZXF1aXJlIGdldHRpbmcgDQpyZS13b3JrZWQgKGdlbmVyYWxpemVkKSBp biB3YXlzIHRoYXQgYXJlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHRvIHRoZSBjb250ZXh0IGluIA0Kb3JkZXIgdG8g YmUgZWZmZWN0aXZlIGluIG90aGVyIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMuIEFuZCB3aGF0IGhlbHBzIHN0dWRlbnRz IA0KZ2VuZXJhbGl6ZT8gUmhldG9yaWNhbCBhd2FyZW5lc3MsIHNlbGYtcmVmbGVjdGlvbiwgZXRj LiBJbiB0aGUgYWJvdmUgDQpleGFtcGxlLCByaGV0b3JpY2FsIGF3YXJlbmVzcyBzaG91bGQgaGVs cCBhIHN0dWRlbnQgcmVhbGl6ZSB3aGVuIDUgDQpwYXJhZ3JhcGhzIHdvbid0IHdvcmsgYW5kIHdo ZW4gaXQgd2lsbC4gQnV0IHRvbyBvZnRlbiB3ZSB0ZWFjaCByaWdpZCBydWxlcyANCnRoYXQgaGF2 ZSBsaXR0bGUgaWYgYW55IGhvcGUgb2Ygd29ya2luZyBvdXQgd2VsbCBpbiBhIG5ldyBjb250ZXh0 Lg0KDQpUaGF0J3Mgd2h5IHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBvZiB3aGF0IHRvIHRlYWNoIGluIEZZQy0tb3Ig ZXZlbiB3aGV0aGVyIEZZQyANCnNob3VsZCBleGlzdC0taXMgc28gaGFyZCB0byBzb3J0IG91dC4g VGhlcmUgaXMgYSBsb3Qgd2UgY2FuIHRlYWNoLCBidXQgDQp1bmxlc3Mgd2UgdGVhY2ggdGhvc2Ug dGhpbmdzIHZlcnkgc3VidGxleSBhbmQgaW4gY29uc3RhbnQgcmVsYXRpb24gdG8gDQpyaGV0b3Jp Y2FsIGF3YXJlbmVzcywgdGhleSBtaWdodCBub3QgaGVscCBzdHVkZW50cyBhdCBhbGwgbGF0ZXIg b3IgbWlnaHQgDQphY3R1YWxseSBodXJ0IHRoZW0gbGF0ZXIuDQoNCkJ5IHRoZSB3YXksIGV2ZXJ5 b25lLCBJIHRoaW5rIFRpYW5lIGlzIGluIEZyYW5jZSB0aGlzIHdlZWssIHNvIHNoZSBtaWdodCAN CmJlIG9uIGEgc2xpZ2h0bHkgZGlmZmVyZW50IHJlc3BvbnNlIHNjaGVkdWxlIHRoYW4gbWUtLWJ1 dCBzaGUgaXMgDQpkZWZpbml0ZWx5IHJlYWRpbmcuDQoNCkVsaXphYmV0aA0KDQpFbGl6YWJldGgg V2FyZGxlLCBQaEQNCkFzc2lzdGFudCBQcm9mZXNzb3INCkRpcmVjdG9yIG9mIFdyaXRpbmcgUHJv Z3JhbXMNCkludGVybnNoaXAgQ29vcmRpbmF0b3INCkRlcGFydG1lbnQgb2YgRW5nbGlzaA0KSHVt YW5pdGllcyAyNzcNClVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgRGF5dG9uDQpEYXl0b24sIE9oaW8NCjkzNy0yMjkt MzAwMw0KZXdhcmRsZUB1ZGF5dG9uLmVkdQ0KDQoNCg0KUmljaGFyZCBIYXN3ZWxsIDxyaGFzd2Vs bEBncmFuZGVjb20ubmV0PiANClNlbnQgYnk6IHRlYWNoaW5nX2NvbXBvc2l0aW9uLWFkbWluQG1h aWxtYW4uZXBwZy5jb20NCjA5LzExLzIwMDcgMTE6MTEgUE0NClBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvDQp0 ZWFjaGluZ19jb21wb3NpdGlvbkBtYWlsbWFuLmVwcGcuY29tDQoNCg0KVG8NCjx0ZWFjaGluZ19j b21wb3NpdGlvbkBtYWlsbWFuLmVwcGcuY29tPg0KY2MNCg0KU3ViamVjdA0KUmU6IFtUZWFjaGlu Z19Db21wb3NpdGlvbl0gV2VsY29tZSBCYWNrIQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KVGlhbmUgYW5kIEVsaXph YmV0aCwNCg0KQW4gZXh0cmVtZWx5IHVzZWZ1bCBtb2R1bGUuIEkgYXBwcmVjaWF0ZSB0aGUgd2F5 IHlvdSBoYXZlIHN5bm9wc2l6ZWQgYSANCnBhc3NlbCBvZiByZXNlYXJjaC4gSXQgb2ZmZXJzIGEg Z29vZCBzcHJpbmdib2FyZCBmb3IgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhbmQsIHdlIA0KYWxsIGhvcGUsIHdpbGwg cGxheSBpdHMgcGFydCBpbiBwdXNoaW5nIHBlb3BsZSB0byBmdXJ0aGVyIGlucXVpcnkuDQoNCldy aXRpbmcgY29udGV4dCBlbWVyZ2VzIGluIHlvdXIgcmV2aWV3IGFzIGEgY3J1Y2lhbCBmYWN0b3Is IGFuZCB0aGF0LCBmb3IgDQptZSwgcmFpc2VzIGEgd2VpcmQga2luZCBvZiBxdWVzdGlvbi4gQXQg bGVhc3QgSSBoYXZlbuKAmXQgcmVhbGx5IHB1dCBpdCB0aGlzIA0Kd2F5IHRvIG15c2VsZi4gV2hh dOKAmXMgc28gYmFkIGFib3V0IE5PVCB0cmFuc2ZlcnJpbmcgd3JpdGluZyBza2lsbHM/DQoNCldl IGNhbuKAmXQgY29udHJvbCB0aGUgbmV3IGNvbnRleHRzIHRoYXQgb3VyIHN0dWRlbnRzIHdpbGwg d2lsbCBjaG9vc2UgaW4gDQp0aGUgZnV0dXJlLCBvciB0aGF0IHdpbGwgYmUgY2hvc2VuIGZvciB0 aGVtLiBBbmQgc29tZSBjb250ZXh0cyB3aWxsIGJlIA0KYm91bmQgdG8gaW52YWxpZGF0ZSBzb21l IG9mIHRoZSBza2lsbHMgd2UgaGF2ZSB0cmllZCB0byB0ZWFjaCBzdHVkZW50cywgDQpza2lsbHMg d2hpY2ggdGhleSBoYWQgZHV0aWZ1bGx5IGRlbW9uc3RyYXRlZCBmb3IgdXMgaW4gdGhlIGNvdXJz ZS4gDQpJbnZhbGlkYXRlIG1heWJlIGlzIHRvbyBzdHJvbmcgb2YgYSB3b3JkLiBCdXQgc29tZSBv ZiBvdXIgd3JpdGluZyANCnN0cmF0ZWdpZXMgd2lsbCBqdXN0IHByb3ZlIGEgaGluZHJhbmNlIGlu IHRoZSBraW5kIG9mIHdyaXRpbmcgdGhleSB3aWxsIA0KaGF2ZSB0byBwcm9kdWNlIGluIHRoZSBu ZXcgY29udGV4dC4NCg0KU28gbWF5YmUgd2Ugb3VnaHQgdG8gaW5jbHVkZSBpbiBvdXIgY291cnNl cyBhIGtpbmQgb2YgZGlzY2xhaW1lcjogQmUgDQp3aWxsaW5nLCBzdHVkZW50cywgdG8gZGlzY2Fy ZCBhbnkgc2tpbGwgSeKAmXZlIHRhdWdodC4gTWF5YmUgYSBzdHJhdGVneSB3ZSANCnNob3VsZCB0 ZWFjaCBpcyBzdHJhdGVnaWMgZm9yZ2V0dGluZy4NCg0KSeKAmW0gcmVtaW5kZWQgYWdhaW7igJRm b3J0dW5hdGVseSBpdCBrZWVwcyBoYXBwZW5pbmfigJRvZiBXb3Jkc3dvcnRo4oCZcyANCnZlbmVy YWJsZSBpbnNpZ2h0OiBJZiB5b3XigJl2ZSBmb3Jnb3R0ZW4gc29tZXRoaW5nLCBpdCBwcm9iYWJs eSBpc27igJl0IA0KaW1wb3J0YW50Lg0KDQpSaWNoIEhhc3dlbGwNCg0KDQo= --=_alternative 00749F3485257354_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPlJpY2gsPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxm b250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5UaGFua3MgZm9yIHlvdXIgcXVlc3Rpb24uIE9u ZSBpc3N1ZQ0KeW91ciBxdWVzdGlvbiByYWlzZXMgaXMgdGhlIHBvc3NpYmlsaXR5IG9mIGJhZCB0 cmFuc2Zlci4gV2hhdCBoYXBwZW5zIHdoZW4NCnN0dWRlbnRzICpkbyogdHJ5IHRvIHVzZSB3aGF0 IHRoZXkndmUgbGVhcm5lZC0tZHV0aWZ1bGx5LCBhcyB5b3Ugc2F5LS1hbmQNCmdldCB0aGluZ3Mg YWxsIHdyb25nIGFzIGEgcmVzdWx0PyBXZSd2ZSBhbGwgc2VlbiB0aGlzLS10aGV5IHdyaXRlIDUg cGFyYWdyYXBocw0KZXZlbiB0aG91Z2ggdGhleSBoYXZlIGEgbG90IG1vcmUgdG8gc2F5IG9yIHRo ZXkgY3JhbSBhIHJlYWxseSBjb21wbGljYXRlZA0KdGhlc2lzIGludG8gb25lIHNlbnRlbmNlLS1i ZWNhdXNlIHRoYXQgaXMgd2hhdCB0aGV5IHdlcmUgdGF1Z2h0IHRvIGRvLg0KT3IsIGxlc3Mgb2J2 aW91c2x5LCB0aGV5IHVzZSAmcXVvdDtzY2hvb2wgc3RyYXRlZ2llcyZxdW90OyBmb3IgbGVhcm5p bmcNCndoZW4gdGhvc2UganVzdCBkb24ndCB3b3JrIGluIHRoZSB3b3JrcGxhY2UuPC9mb250Pg0K PGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5UaGF0J3Mgd2h5LCBJIHRo aW5rLCB0aGUga2luZHMgb2YgdGhpbmdzDQp0aGF0IHJlYWxseSBkbyB0cmFuc2ZlciBhY3Jvc3Mg YWxsIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMgZnJvbSB3cml0aW5nIGNsYXNzZXMgYXJlDQpmZXcgaW4gbnVtYmVyOiBN YXliZSByaGV0b3JpY2FsIGF3YXJlbmVzcywgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBvZiBkcmFmdGluZy9wcm9j ZXNzLA0KZ2VucmUgYXdhcmVuZXNzLCBhbmQgJm5ic3A7c2VsZi1yZWZsZWN0aW9uLiBNb3N0IG90 aGVyIHRoaW5ncyB3ZSB0ZWFjaA0KYWJzb2x1dGVseSByZXF1aXJlIGdldHRpbmcgcmUtd29ya2Vk IChnZW5lcmFsaXplZCkgaW4gd2F5cyB0aGF0IGFyZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZQ0KdG8gdGhlIGNvbnRl eHQgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gYmUgZWZmZWN0aXZlIGluIG90aGVyIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMuIEFuZCB3aGF0 IGhlbHBzDQpzdHVkZW50cyBnZW5lcmFsaXplPyBSaGV0b3JpY2FsIGF3YXJlbmVzcywgc2VsZi1y ZWZsZWN0aW9uLCBldGMuIEluIHRoZQ0KYWJvdmUgZXhhbXBsZSwgcmhldG9yaWNhbCBhd2FyZW5l c3Mgc2hvdWxkIGhlbHAgYSBzdHVkZW50IHJlYWxpemUgd2hlbg0KNSBwYXJhZ3JhcGhzIHdvbid0 IHdvcmsgYW5kIHdoZW4gaXQgd2lsbC4gQnV0IHRvbyBvZnRlbiB3ZSB0ZWFjaCByaWdpZA0KcnVs ZXMgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGxpdHRsZSBpZiBhbnkgaG9wZSBvZiB3b3JraW5nIG91dCB3ZWxsIGluIGEg bmV3IGNvbnRleHQuPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIj5UaGF0J3Mgd2h5IHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBvZiB3aGF0IHRvIHRlYWNoDQppbiBGWUMtLW9y IGV2ZW4gd2hldGhlciBGWUMgc2hvdWxkIGV4aXN0LS1pcyBzbyBoYXJkIHRvIHNvcnQgb3V0LiBU aGVyZQ0KaXMgYSBsb3Qgd2UgY2FuIHRlYWNoLCBidXQgdW5sZXNzIHdlIHRlYWNoIHRob3NlIHRo aW5ncyB2ZXJ5IHN1YnRsZXkgYW5kDQppbiBjb25zdGFudCByZWxhdGlvbiB0byByaGV0b3JpY2Fs IGF3YXJlbmVzcywgdGhleSBtaWdodCBub3QgaGVscCBzdHVkZW50cw0KYXQgYWxsIGxhdGVyIG9y IG1pZ2h0IGFjdHVhbGx5IGh1cnQgdGhlbSBsYXRlci48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkJ5IHRoZSB3YXksIGV2ZXJ5b25lLCBJIHRoaW5rIFRp YW5lDQppcyBpbiBGcmFuY2UgdGhpcyB3ZWVrLCBzbyBzaGUgbWlnaHQgYmUgb24gYSBzbGlnaHRs eSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcmVzcG9uc2UNCnNjaGVkdWxlIHRoYW4gbWUtLWJ1dCBzaGUgaXMgZGVmaW5p dGVseSByZWFkaW5nLjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiI+RWxpemFiZXRoPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5z LXNlcmlmIj5FbGl6YWJldGggV2FyZGxlLCBQaEQ8YnI+DQpBc3Npc3RhbnQgUHJvZmVzc29yPGJy Pg0KRGlyZWN0b3Igb2YgV3JpdGluZyBQcm9ncmFtczxicj4NCkludGVybnNoaXAgQ29vcmRpbmF0 b3I8YnI+DQpEZXBhcnRtZW50IG9mIEVuZ2xpc2g8YnI+DQpIdW1hbml0aWVzIDI3Nzxicj4NClVu aXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgRGF5dG9uPGJyPg0KRGF5dG9uLCBPaGlvPGJyPg0KOTM3LTIyOS0zMDAzPGJy Pg0KZXdhcmRsZUB1ZGF5dG9uLmVkdTwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjx0YWJsZSB3 aWR0aD0xMDAlPg0KPHRyIHZhbGlnbj10b3A+DQo8dGQgd2lkdGg9NDAlPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBm YWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj48Yj5SaWNoYXJkIEhhc3dlbGwgJmx0O3JoYXN3ZWxsQGdyYW5kZWNv bS5uZXQmZ3Q7PC9iPg0KPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlm Ij5TZW50IGJ5OiB0ZWFjaGluZ19jb21wb3NpdGlvbi1hZG1pbkBtYWlsbWFuLmVwcGcuY29tPC9m b250Pg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjA5LzExLzIwMDcgMTE6MTEg UE08L2ZvbnQ+DQo8dGFibGUgYm9yZGVyPg0KPHRyIHZhbGlnbj10b3A+DQo8dGQgYmdjb2xvcj13 aGl0ZT4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249Y2VudGVyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5Q bGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCB0bzxicj4NCnRlYWNoaW5nX2NvbXBvc2l0aW9uQG1haWxtYW4uZXBwZy5j b208L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj4NCjx0ZCB3aWR0aD01OSU+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lk dGg9MTAwJT4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9wPg0KPHRkPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj1yaWdodD48Zm9udCBz aXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+VG88L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0x IGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZsdDt0ZWFjaGluZ19jb21wb3NpdGlvbkBtYWlsbWFuLmVwcGcu Y29tJmd0OzwvZm9udD4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9wPg0KPHRkPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj1yaWdodD48 Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Y2M8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+DQo8dHIg dmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249cmlnaHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNh bnMtc2VyaWYiPlN1YmplY3Q8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNh bnMtc2VyaWYiPlJlOiBbVGVhY2hpbmdfQ29tcG9zaXRpb25dIFdlbGNvbWUgQmFjayE8L2ZvbnQ+ PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj4NCjx0YWJsZT4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9wPg0KPHRkPg0KPHRkPjwvdGFi bGU+DQo8YnI+PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0iVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj5UaWFuZSBhbmQgRWxpemFiZXRoLDxicj4NCjxicj4NCkFuIGV4dHJlbWVs eSB1c2VmdWwgbW9kdWxlLiBJIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUgdGhlIHdheSB5b3UgaGF2ZSBzeW5vcHNpemVk IGENCnBhc3NlbCBvZiByZXNlYXJjaC4gSXQgb2ZmZXJzIGEgZ29vZCBzcHJpbmdib2FyZCBmb3Ig ZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBhbmQsIHdlDQphbGwgaG9wZSwgd2lsbCBwbGF5IGl0cyBwYXJ0IGluIHB1c2hp bmcgcGVvcGxlIHRvIGZ1cnRoZXIgaW5xdWlyeS48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpXcml0aW5nIGNvbnRleHQg ZW1lcmdlcyBpbiB5b3VyIHJldmlldyBhcyBhIGNydWNpYWwgZmFjdG9yLCBhbmQgdGhhdCwgZm9y DQptZSwgcmFpc2VzIGEgd2VpcmQga2luZCBvZiBxdWVzdGlvbi4gQXQgbGVhc3QgSSBoYXZlbuKA mXQgcmVhbGx5IHB1dCBpdA0KdGhpcyB3YXkgdG8gbXlzZWxmLiBXaGF04oCZcyBzbyBiYWQgYWJv dXQgTk9UIHRyYW5zZmVycmluZyB3cml0aW5nIHNraWxscz88YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpXZSBjYW7igJl0 IGNvbnRyb2wgdGhlIG5ldyBjb250ZXh0cyB0aGF0IG91ciBzdHVkZW50cyB3aWxsIHdpbGwgY2hv b3NlIGluDQp0aGUgZnV0dXJlLCBvciB0aGF0IHdpbGwgYmUgY2hvc2VuIGZvciB0aGVtLiBBbmQg c29tZSBjb250ZXh0cyB3aWxsIGJlDQpib3VuZCB0byBpbnZhbGlkYXRlIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHNr aWxscyB3ZSBoYXZlIHRyaWVkIHRvIHRlYWNoIHN0dWRlbnRzLA0Kc2tpbGxzIHdoaWNoIHRoZXkg aGFkIGR1dGlmdWxseSBkZW1vbnN0cmF0ZWQgZm9yIHVzIGluIHRoZSBjb3Vyc2UuIEludmFsaWRh dGUNCm1heWJlIGlzIHRvbyBzdHJvbmcgb2YgYSB3b3JkLiBCdXQgc29tZSBvZiBvdXIgd3JpdGlu ZyBzdHJhdGVnaWVzIHdpbGwNCmp1c3QgcHJvdmUgYSBoaW5kcmFuY2UgaW4gdGhlIGtpbmQgb2Yg d3JpdGluZyB0aGV5IHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0byBwcm9kdWNlDQppbiB0aGUgbmV3IGNvbnRleHQuPGJy Pg0KPGJyPg0KU28gbWF5YmUgd2Ugb3VnaHQgdG8gaW5jbHVkZSBpbiBvdXIgY291cnNlcyBhIGtp bmQgb2YgZGlzY2xhaW1lcjogQmUgd2lsbGluZywNCnN0dWRlbnRzLCB0byBkaXNjYXJkIGFueSBz a2lsbCBJ4oCZdmUgdGF1Z2h0LiBNYXliZSBhIHN0cmF0ZWd5IHdlIHNob3VsZA0KdGVhY2ggaXMg c3RyYXRlZ2ljIGZvcmdldHRpbmcuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KSeKAmW0gcmVtaW5kZWQgYWdhaW7igJRm b3J0dW5hdGVseSBpdCBrZWVwcyBoYXBwZW5pbmfigJRvZiBXb3Jkc3dvcnRo4oCZcyB2ZW5lcmFi bGUNCmluc2lnaHQ6IElmIHlvdeKAmXZlIGZvcmdvdHRlbiBzb21ldGhpbmcsIGl0IHByb2JhYmx5 IGlzbuKAmXQgaW1wb3J0YW50Ljxicj4NCjxicj4NClJpY2ggSGFzd2VsbDxicj4NCjwvZm9udD4N Cjxicj4NCg== --=_alternative 00749F3485257354_=-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 13 05:40:37 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Doug Downs) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:40:37 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! Message-ID: <46E86BE00200001A0002626E@mail-out.email.uvsc.edu> I'm powerfully struck with the point Tiane and Elizabeth cite from Rogers that "Writing is not perceived by students as a generalizable skill." It suggests that students *already* infer some version of what Rich suggests we tell them, "Be willing to discard any skill I've taught." It correlates, in my mind, with the perpetual student awareness -- and complaint -- that they have to "figure out" anew every single professor -- what does *this* one want in writing? On that basis, it makes sense they don't perceive writing as a generalizable skill. One of the things that fascinates me about this is the conflicting cultural script that writing is a basic, foundational skill: learn once, write many. By *that* assumption, which underwrites the very existence of FYC, writing is a generalizable skill. (If university administrators and faculty and parents didn't believe this, FYC would be gone in the blink of an eye, I think.) What happens? Students *complain* that they have to relearn to write for every single professor -- but they do expect to. It's an interesting kind of awareness. Tiane and Elizabeth, thanks for a superb module -- can't wait to see how discussion develops. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 >>> "Richard Haswell" 09/11/07 9:11 PM >>> Tiane and Elizabeth, An extremely useful module. I appreciate the way you have synopsized a passel of research. It offers a good springboard for discussion and, we all hope, will play its part in pushing people to further inquiry. Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and that, for me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I haven¹t really put it this way to myself. What¹s so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? We can¹t control the new contexts that our students will will choose in the future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be bound to invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, skills which they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate maybe is too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just prove a hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new context. So maybe we ought to include in our courses a kind of disclaimer: Be willing, students, to discard any skill I¹ve taught. Maybe a strategy we should teach is strategic forgetting. I¹m reminded again‹fortunately it keeps happening‹of Wordsworth¹s venerable insight: If you¹ve forgotten something, it probably isn¹t important. Rich Haswell From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 13 13:42:55 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Chris Anson) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:42:55 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! In-Reply-To: <46E86BE00200001A0002626E@mail-out.email.uvsc.edu> References: <46E86BE00200001A0002626E@mail-out.email.uvsc.edu> Message-ID: <8F3004DA-329F-4570-95F7-74A2D3E0826B@ncsu.edu> --Apple-Mail-54-926777657 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed These are great points, Doug. So students are already "activity =20 theorists" of a sort, though their analysis of their local, temporal =20 situations may be more driven by considerations of performance than =20 anything else, and may also be somewhat tacit. Here we are, teaching =20 them to analyze their rhetorical situations and "read" the cultures =20 and contexts of their writing, and they're doing it anyway. Maybe we =20 can tap into some of their own language and frames of reference--the =20 psyching out part? Your other point is really interesting from a systemic perspective. =20 Are we hiding a belief (that little transfers) in order to protect =20 the entire industry of composition? (When any of us here explains to =20 faculty in other disciplines that we think writing is largely =20 contextually determined and situated, and that students "learn anew" =20 in each new situation, we get looks of utter incredulity, as if a =20 chemist had said there is no such thing as a law of causation). But =20 let's bring that assumption back for greater scrutiny. We need to =20 know what we mean by the "what" that does or does not transfer, =20 because there's no question that all sorts of things are, in fact, =20 learned and are transported--carried--with writers from place to =20 place (Rich Haswell, Marilyn Sternglass, Barbara Walvoord, Lucille =20 McCarthy, and others, especially those who have done longitudinal and =20= cross-context studies of novice writers, have documented some of =20 this). And how "largely" is writing contextually determined and =20 situated? Can we really even estimate that? Are some writers better =20 at "adaptation" than others? (There's been a considerable body of =20 research in social psychology on the question of social adaptation--=20 that some people are high and some low social adaptors, meaning they =20 willingly change themselves to "fit in" to a particular group at a =20 particular time, or they tend to be the same person regardless of the =20= consequences for acceptance or alienation. We ought to be able to =20 study how readily writers figure out contexts and situations when =20 they write, in something more than a Flower/Hayes "write about your =20 job for readers of Seventeen Magazine" sort of way.) Chris On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Doug Downs wrote: > I'm powerfully struck with the point Tiane and Elizabeth cite from =20 > Rogers that "Writing is not perceived by students as a =20 > generalizable skill." It suggests that students *already* infer =20 > some version of what Rich suggests we tell them, "Be willing to =20 > discard any skill I've taught." It correlates, in my mind, with =20 > the perpetual student awareness -- and complaint -- that they have =20 > to "figure out" anew every single professor -- what does *this* one =20= > want in writing? On that basis, it makes sense they don't perceive =20= > writing as a generalizable skill. > > One of the things that fascinates me about this is the conflicting =20 > cultural script that writing is a basic, foundational skill: learn =20 > once, write many. By *that* assumption, which underwrites the very =20= > existence of FYC, writing is a generalizable skill. (If university =20= > administrators and faculty and parents didn't believe this, FYC =20 > would be gone in the blink of an eye, I think.) What happens? =20 > Students *complain* that they have to relearn to write for every =20 > single professor -- but they do expect to. It's an interesting =20 > kind of awareness. > > Tiane and Elizabeth, thanks for a superb module -- can't wait to =20 > see how discussion develops. > > Cheers -- > Doug > > > Dr. Doug Downs > Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric > Writing Program Coordinator > Dept. of English and Literature > Utah Valley State College > 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 > LA 126g > 801-863-8572 >>>> "Richard Haswell" 09/11/07 9:11 PM >>> > Tiane and Elizabeth, > > An extremely useful module. I appreciate the way you have synopsized a > passel of research. It offers a good springboard for discussion =20 > and, we all > hope, will play its part in pushing people to further inquiry. > > Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and =20 > that, for > me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I haven=B9t really put =20= > it this > way to myself. What=B9s so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? > > We can=B9t control the new contexts that our students will will =20 > choose in the > future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be =20 > bound to > invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, =20 > skills which > they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate =20 > maybe is > too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just =20 > prove a > hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new > context. > > So maybe we ought to include in our courses a kind of disclaimer: Be > willing, students, to discard any skill I=B9ve taught. Maybe a =20 > strategy we > should teach is strategic forgetting. > > I=B9m reminded again=8Bfortunately it keeps happening=8Bof = Wordsworth=B9s =20 > venerable > insight: If you=B9ve forgotten something, it probably isn=B9t = important. > > Rich Haswell > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - =20 > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/=20 > listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=20 Chris M. Anson [Web site] Professor of English Director, Campus Writing & Speaking Program Box 8105, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8105 (919) 513-4080 --Apple-Mail-54-926777657 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
These are great points, = Doug. So students are already "activity theorists" of a sort, though = their analysis of their local, temporal situations may be more driven by = considerations of performance than anything else, and may also be = somewhat tacit. Here we are, teaching them to analyze their rhetorical = situations and "read" the cultures and contexts of their writing, and = they're doing it anyway. Maybe we can tap into some of their own = language and frames of reference--the psyching out part?

Your other point is really = interesting from a systemic perspective. Are we hiding a belief (that = little transfers) in order to protect the entire industry of = composition? (When any of us here explains to faculty in other = disciplines that we think writing is largely contextually determined and = situated, and that students "learn anew" in each new situation, we get = looks of utter incredulity, as if a chemist had said there is no such = thing as a law of causation). But let's bring that assumption back for = greater scrutiny. We need to know what we mean by the "what" that does = or does not transfer, because there's no question that all sorts of = things are, in fact, learned and are transported--carried--with writers = from place to place (Rich Haswell, Marilyn Sternglass, Barbara Walvoord, = Lucille McCarthy, and others, especially those who have done = longitudinal and cross-context studies of novice writers, have = documented some of this). And how "largely" is writing contextually = determined and situated? Can we really even estimate that? Are some = writers better at "adaptation" than others? (There's been a considerable = body of research in social psychology on the question of social = adaptation--that some people are high and some low social adaptors, = meaning they willingly change themselves to "fit in" to a particular = group at a particular time, or they tend to be the same person = regardless of the consequences for acceptance or alienation. We ought to = be able to study how readily writers figure out contexts and situations = when they write, in something more than a Flower/Hayes "write about your = job for readers of Seventeen Magazine" sort of way.)

Chris




On Sep 13, 2007, = at 12:40 AM, Doug Downs wrote:

I'm powerfully struck with the point Tiane and = Elizabeth cite from Rogers that "Writing is not perceived by students as = a generalizable skill."=A0 = It suggests that students *already* infer some version of what = Rich suggests we tell them, "Be willing to discard any skill I've = taught."=A0 It correlates, = in my mind, with the perpetual student awareness -- and complaint -- = that they have to "figure out" anew every single professor -- what does = *this* one want in writing?=A0 = On that basis, it makes sense they don't perceive writing as a = generalizable skill.
One of the things that = fascinates me about this is the conflicting cultural script that writing = is a basic, foundational skill: learn once, write many.=A0 By *that* assumption, which = underwrites the very existence of FYC, writing is a generalizable = skill.=A0 (If university = administrators and faculty and parents didn't believe this, FYC would be = gone in the blink of an eye, I think.)=A0 What happens?=A0 Students *complain* that they = have to relearn to write for every single professor -- but they do = expect to.=A0 It's an = interesting kind of awareness.

Tiane and Elizabeth, thanks for = a superb module -- can't wait to see how discussion develops.

Cheers = --
Doug


Dr. Doug Downs
Asst. = Professor, Composition & Rhetoric
Writing = Program Coordinator
Dept. of English and = Literature
Utah Valley State = College
800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT = 84058
LA 126g
801-863-8572
"Richard Haswell" <rhaswell@grandecom.net> = 09/11/07 9:11 PM >>>
=
Tiane and = Elizabeth,

An extremely useful module. I appreciate the way you = have synopsized a
passel of research. It offers a = good springboard for discussion and, we all
hope, = will play its part in pushing people to further inquiry.

Writing = context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and that, = for
me, raises a weird kind of = question. At least I haven=B9t really put it this
way to myself. What=B9s so bad about NOT = transferring writing skills?

We can=B9t control the new = contexts that our students will will choose in the
future, or that will be chosen for them. And some = contexts will be bound to
invalidate = some of the skills we have tried to teach students, skills = which
they had dutifully demonstrated = for us in the course. Invalidate maybe is
too = strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just prove = a
hindrance in the kind of writing they will have = to produce in the new
context.

So maybe = we ought to include in our courses a kind of disclaimer: Be
willing, students, to discard any skill I=B9ve = taught. Maybe a strategy we
should teach = is strategic forgetting.

I=B9m reminded again=8Bfortunately= it keeps happening=8Bof Wordsworth=B9s venerable
insight: If you=B9ve forgotten something, it = probably isn=B9t important.

Rich Haswell




Teaching_Composition maillist=A0 -=A0 Teaching_Composition= @mailman.eppg.com

To = unsubscribe, please visit htt= p://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and = update your information.

--=A0
Chris = M. Anson=A0[Web = site]
Professor of = English=A0
Director,=A0Campus Writing & Speaking Program
Box = 8105,=A0North Carolina State University=A0
Raleigh, NC=A0 = 27695-8105=A0
(919) 513-4080

= --Apple-Mail-54-926777657-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 13 23:55:58 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Charles Nelson) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:55:58 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: <200709131245.l8DCjLv8000294@localhost.eppg.com> References: <200709131245.l8DCjLv8000294@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: <28200325-1608-4555-874F-449A931E1A9F@gmail.com> Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so bad about NOT transferring engineering concepts?" Charles Nelson On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: > Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and > that, for > me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I havent really put > it this > way to myself. Whats so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? > > We cant control the new contexts that our students will will > choose in the > future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be > bound to > invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, > skills which > they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate > maybe is > too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just > prove a > hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new > context. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 00:14:01 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kate McKinney) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:14:01 +0000 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: <28200325-1608-4555-874F-449A931E1A9F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Charles Nelson's comment makes me laugh--and makes me want to make the comment I had been biting back: This (fascinating) issue speaks to my own feeling of hypocrisy as I teach a writing course: I never "got" calculus until I took physics... --Kate McKinney NCSU >From: Charles Nelson >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 >#1252 - 4 msgs >Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:55:58 -0400 > >Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so bad about >NOT transferring engineering concepts?" > >Charles Nelson > >On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: > >>Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and that, for >>me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I havent really put it >>this >>way to myself. Whats so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? >> >>We cant control the new contexts that our students will will choose in >>the >>future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be bound >>to >>invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, skills >>which >>they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate maybe is >>too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just prove >>a >>hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new >>context. > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >your information. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger : discutez en direct avec vos amis ! http://www.msn.fr/msger/default.asp From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 01:50:31 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Neal Lerner) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:50:31 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, Charles' comments make me think that if you put five engineers in a room, they might not necessarily agree on what key "engineering concepts" are, particularly if one is a chemical engineer, another a mechanical engineer, another a computer engineer, another a biological engineer, and the last a civil engineer. The concept might get boiled down to the ability to solve problems, but then I had a very interesting conversation with an engineering faculty member last spring who told me that he doesn't necessarily want his students to be good problem solvers, he wants them to be good problem choosers. My point here (if I have one, that is) is that transferability quite often gets reduced to talk of skills on the one hand or abstract abilities on the other. New learning is based on prior learning, for sure, but that's what is new looks very different from what came before is also highly likely. That sure makes it hard to measure. Neal Lerner MIT On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:14 PM, Kate McKinney wrote: > Charles Nelson's comment makes me laugh--and makes me want to make > the comment I had been biting back: > This (fascinating) issue speaks to my own feeling of hypocrisy as I > teach a writing course: I never "got" calculus until I took physics... > > --Kate McKinney > NCSU > > >> From: Charles Nelson >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, >> Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs >> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:55:58 -0400 >> >> Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so bad >> about NOT transferring engineering concepts?" >> >> Charles Nelson >> >> On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: >> >>> Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and >>> that, for >>> me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I havent really >>> put it this >>> way to myself. Whats so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? >>> >>> We cant control the new contexts that our students will will >>> choose in the >>> future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will >>> be bound to >>> invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, >>> skills which >>> they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate >>> maybe is >>> too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will >>> just prove a >>> hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the >>> new >>> context. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - >> Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/ >> listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Messenger : discutez en direct avec vos amis ! http:// > www.msn.fr/msger/default.asp > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/ > listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 02:23:18 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Savannah Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:23:18 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In a College of Letters and Science Seminar staff meeting this past week, among faculty from many disciplines, the topics of why our students a) don't write strong essays, b) don't speak freely and engage in inquiry, and c) don't trust themselves to write well (or think well, verbally or in writing) and/or are only writing for the teacher, not themselves, came up. In other words, we all expressed anxiety about why our students don't engage in inquiry more and why they don't write better--from semi-colons to logic. Throughout our meeting, I couldn't help but dwell on my perception that our students see language as compartmentalized and don't understand transferring skills laterally or see universal aspects to language, from critical thought to final communication on the page or in discussion. From my experiences in the professional world, from carpentry to nonprofit water resources education publications, I see a veil over the role of language and an emphasis on "tangible" skills from IT to capacity-building to engineering, with everyone forgetting that language is, in fact, what gets it all done. In fact, I left the world of language after my undergrad because of Emerson's "Self- Reliance" essay; I returned because I see language's universality and necessity. We aren't merely ensuring our own jobs; I made a much better living as a carpenter. I believe language, at its best, shapes character. Savannah Barnes Montana State University, MSU Bozeman On Sep 13, 2007, at 6:50 PM, Neal Lerner wrote: > Well, Charles' comments make me think that if you put five > engineers in a room, they might not necessarily agree on what key > "engineering concepts" are, particularly if one is a chemical > engineer, another a mechanical engineer, another a computer > engineer, another a biological engineer, and the last a civil > engineer. The concept might get boiled down to the ability to > solve problems, but then I had a very interesting conversation with > an engineering faculty member last spring who told me that he > doesn't necessarily want his students to be good problem solvers, > he wants them to be good problem choosers. > > My point here (if I have one, that is) is that transferability > quite often gets reduced to talk of skills on the one hand or > abstract abilities on the other. New learning is based on prior > learning, for sure, but that's what is new looks very different > from what came before is also highly likely. That sure makes it > hard to measure. > > Neal Lerner > MIT > > On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:14 PM, Kate McKinney wrote: > >> Charles Nelson's comment makes me laugh--and makes me want to make >> the comment I had been biting back: >> This (fascinating) issue speaks to my own feeling of hypocrisy as >> I teach a writing course: I never "got" calculus until I took >> physics... >> >> --Kate McKinney >> NCSU >> >> >>> From: Charles Nelson >>> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >>> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >>> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, >>> Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs >>> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:55:58 -0400 >>> >>> Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so >>> bad about NOT transferring engineering concepts?" >>> >>> Charles Nelson >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: >>> >>>> Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and >>>> that, for >>>> me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I havent really >>>> put it this >>>> way to myself. Whats so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? >>>> >>>> We cant control the new contexts that our students will will >>>> choose in the >>>> future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will >>>> be bound to >>>> invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, >>>> skills which >>>> they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. >>>> Invalidate maybe is >>>> too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will >>>> just prove a >>>> hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in >>>> the new >>>> context. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Teaching_Composition maillist - >>> Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >>> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >>> >>> To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/ >>> listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> MSN Messenger : discutez en direct avec vos amis ! http:// >> www.msn.fr/msger/default.asp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - >> Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/ >> listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/ > listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. > From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 02:46:01 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Chris Anson) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:46:01 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0620CAF3-580B-40B8-AF85-6AF19B5B316B@ncsu.edu> --Apple-Mail-87-973763758 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed I like this distinction between skills and abstract abilities. =20 Transfer, as we know from some of the scholars that Tiane and =20 Elizabeth cite, can be "low road" or "high road," as well as "near =20 transfer" or "far transfer." Say we train HS kids to crank out 5-=20 paragraph themes. Well, with enough practice, some of this becomes =20 automatized (low-road), so that when you keep the context, task, =20 etc., the same (near transfer), transfer happens. It's like gear-=20 shifting. And it's why the SAT can be coached. But plonk those kids =20 into a college course (far transfer) that requires them to synthesize =20= disparate primary documents relating to a historical event, then =20 write an analysis of that event that demonstrates their understanding =20= of new historicism, and you've got "mindful," or "high-load transfer, =20= which "requires effortful abstraction and a search for connections =20 between contexts." Or, to take another example: cops write hundreds =20 of incident reports--it becomes automatized, at least the formal =20 considerations, if not the content (though I bet after 40 domestic =20 dispute reports, even that starts to get canned). Say I accompany a =20 police officer on a night patrol. We're called to a domestic dispute; =20= I watch and listen, and then I'm supposed to write up the incident =20 report. Transfer is far (the context is not at all what I'm used to, =20 nor do I know the appropriate format, language, coverage, structure--=20 chronological? resolution first? totally objective? no personal =20 pronouns? how detailed? what I did, or just what the alleged =20 perpetrator(s)/victim(s) did?. So this is a case of mindful transfer: =20= if I'm at all successful, it's because I can engage in effortful =20 abstraction and find connections between contexts. Maybe I've seen or =20= written nursing patient logs and I abstract some relationship between =20= them, recognizing, for example, that my purpose in both calls for =20 objective reportage, or figuring out similarities in what my readers =20 need from the reports (essential descriptive information leading to =20 or supporting medical or legal judgment). If all we do is teach skills (how to create sentences with =20 subordinate clauses, e.g.), transfer is out the window. Maybe police =20 reports *avoid* lots of subordination, or stick to short sentences =20 with coordinating conjunctions? "Ms. Price described her car as a =20 maroon, 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse with a black convertible roof. The =20 car registration number is 492-GT5. She estimated the value of the =20 car at $8,500 and said there were no distinguishing marks or items." On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:50 PM, Neal Lerner wrote: > Well, Charles' comments make me think that if you put five =20 > engineers in a room, they might not necessarily agree on what key =20 > "engineering concepts" are, particularly if one is a chemical =20 > engineer, another a mechanical engineer, another a computer =20 > engineer, another a biological engineer, and the last a civil =20 > engineer. The concept might get boiled down to the ability to =20 > solve problems, but then I had a very interesting conversation with =20= > an engineering faculty member last spring who told me that he =20 > doesn't necessarily want his students to be good problem solvers, =20 > he wants them to be good problem choosers. > > My point here (if I have one, that is) is that transferability =20 > quite often gets reduced to talk of skills on the one hand or =20 > abstract abilities on the other. New learning is based on prior =20 > learning, for sure, but that's what is new looks very different =20 > from what came before is also highly likely. That sure makes it =20 > hard to measure. > > Neal Lerner > MIT > > On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:14 PM, Kate McKinney wrote: > >> Charles Nelson's comment makes me laugh--and makes me want to make =20= >> the comment I had been biting back: >> This (fascinating) issue speaks to my own feeling of hypocrisy as =20 >> I teach a writing course: I never "got" calculus until I took =20 >> physics... >> >> --Kate McKinney >> NCSU >> >> >>> From: Charles Nelson >>> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >>> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >>> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, =20 >>> Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs >>> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:55:58 -0400 >>> >>> Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so =20 >>> bad about NOT transferring engineering concepts?" >>> >>> Charles Nelson >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: >>> >>>> Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and =20= >>>> that, for >>>> me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I haven=B9t really =20= >>>> put it this >>>> way to myself. What=B9s so bad about NOT transferring writing = skills? >>>> >>>> We can=B9t control the new contexts that our students will will =20= >>>> choose in the >>>> future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will =20 >>>> be bound to >>>> invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, =20 >>>> skills which >>>> they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. =20 >>>> Invalidate maybe is >>>> too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will =20 >>>> just prove a >>>> hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in =20 >>>> the new >>>> context. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Teaching_Composition maillist - =20 >>> Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >>> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >>> >>> To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/=20 >>> listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> MSN Messenger : discutez en direct avec vos amis ! http://=20 >> www.msn.fr/msger/default.asp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - =20 >> Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/=20 >> listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - =20 > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/=20 > listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=20 Chris M. Anson [Web site] University Distinguished Professor Director, Campus Writing & Speaking Program Box 8105, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8105 (919) 513-4080 --Apple-Mail-87-973763758 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 I= like this distinction between skills and abstract abilities. Transfer, = as we know from some of the scholars that Tiane and Elizabeth cite, can = be "low road" or "high road," as well as "near transfer" or "far = transfer." Say we train HS kids to crank out 5-paragraph themes. Well, = with enough practice, some of this becomes automatized (low-road), so = that when you keep the context, task, etc., the same (near transfer), = transfer happens.=A0 It's=A0like gear-shifting. And it's why the SAT can = be coached.=A0 But plonk those kids into a college course (far transfer) = that requires them to synthesize disparate primary documents relating to = a historical event, then write an analysis of that event that = demonstrates their understanding of new historicism, and you've got = "mindful," or "high-load transfer, which "requires effortful abstraction = and a search for connections between contexts." Or, to take another = example: cops write hundreds of incident reports--it becomes = automatized, at least the formal considerations, if not the content = (though I bet after 40 domestic dispute reports, even that starts to get = canned). Say I accompany a police officer on a night patrol. We're = called to a domestic dispute; I watch and listen, and then I'm supposed = to write up the incident report. Transfer is far (the context is not at = all what I'm used to, nor do I know the appropriate format, language, = coverage, structure--chronological? resolution first? totally objective? = no personal pronouns? how detailed? what I did, or just what the alleged = perpetrator(s)/victim(s) did?. So this is a case of mindful transfer: if = I'm at all successful, it's because I can engage in effortful = abstraction and find connections between contexts. Maybe I've seen or = written nursing patient logs and I abstract some relationship between = them, recognizing, for example, that my purpose in both = calls for objective reportage, or figuring out similarities in what my = readers need from the reports (essential descriptive information leading = to or supporting medical or legal judgment).

If all we do is teach = skills (how to create sentences with subordinate clauses, e.g.), = transfer is out the window. Maybe police reports *avoid* lots of = subordination, or stick to short sentences with coordinating = conjunctions?=A0 "Ms. Price described her car as a maroon, 1999 = Mitsubishi Eclipse with a black convertible roof. The car registration = number is 492-GT5. She estimated the value of the car at $8,500 and said = there were no distinguishing marks or items."






On Sep 13, = 2007, at 8:50 PM, Neal Lerner wrote:

Well, Charles' comments make me think that if you = put five engineers in a room, they might not necessarily agree on what = key "engineering concepts" are, particularly if one is a chemical = engineer, another a mechanical engineer, another a computer engineer, = another a biological engineer, and the last a civil engineer.=A0 The concept might get boiled = down to the ability to solve problems, but then I had a very interesting = conversation with an engineering faculty member last spring who told me = that he doesn't necessarily want his students to be good problem = solvers, he wants them to be good problem choosers.

My point = here (if I have one, that is) is that transferability quite often gets = reduced to talk of skills on the one hand or abstract abilities on the = other. New learning is based on prior learning, for sure, but that's = what is new looks very different from what came before is also highly = likely.=A0 That sure makes = it hard to measure.
Neal Lerner
MIT

On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:14 PM, = Kate McKinney wrote:
Charles = Nelson's comment makes me laugh--and makes me want to make the comment I = had been biting back:
This (fascinating) issue = speaks to my own feeling of hypocrisy as I teach a writing course: I = never "got" calculus until I took physics...

--Kate = McKinney
NCSU


From: Charles Nelson <charles.p.nelson@gmail.com&= gt;
Subject: = [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 = msgs
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:55:58 = -0400

Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, = "What's so bad=A0 about NOT = transferring engineering concepts?"

Charles Nelson

On Sep = 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote:

Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial = factor, and=A0 that, = for
me, raises a weird kind of = question. At least I haven=B9t really put=A0 it this
way to myself. What=B9s so bad about NOT = transferring writing skills?

We can=B9t control the new = contexts that our students will will=A0 choose in the
future, or that will be chosen for them. And some = contexts will be=A0 bound = to
invalidate some of the skills we have tried to = teach students,=A0 skills = which
they had dutifully demonstrated = for us in the course. Invalidate=A0 = maybe is
too strong of a word. But some = of our writing strategies will just=A0= prove a
hindrance in the kind of writing = they will have to produce in the new


Teaching_Composition maillist=A0 -=A0 Teaching_Composition= @mailman.eppg.com

To = unsubscribe, please visit htt= p://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and = update your information.

MSN Messenger : discutez en direct avec vos amis ! = http://www.msn.fr/msger/defau= lt.asp

Teaching_Composition maillist=A0 -=A0 Teaching_Composition= @mailman.eppg.com

To = unsubscribe, please visit htt= p://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and = update your information.


Teaching_Composition maillist=A0 -=A0 Teaching_Composition= @mailman.eppg.com

To = unsubscribe, please visit htt= p://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and = update your information.

--=A0
Chris = M. Anson=A0[Web = site]
University Distinguished Professor
Director,=A0Campus Writing & Speaking Program
Box = 8105,=A0North Carolina State University=A0
Raleigh, NC=A0 = 27695-8105=A0
(919) 513-4080


= --Apple-Mail-87-973763758-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 03:40:23 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Richard Haswell) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:40:23 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: <28200325-1608-4555-874F-449A931E1A9F@gmail.com> Message-ID: I can't speak for engineers, but I can imagine a great many situations to which it would not be helpful to transfer engineering concepts. Here's an example. In his autobiography, North of Jamaica, Louis Simpson recounts tells this story about his father, who was an engineer: "My toy train kept flying off the track. My father stuck a wad of putty on to the engine. This slowed it down so that it did not fly off the track. I could no longer imagine that the thing with a lump of putty on its side was a locomotive engine, but he looked on with a satisfied expression. He didnt care what things looked like as long as they worked." Rich On 9/13/07 5:55 PM, "Charles Nelson" wrote: > Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so bad > about NOT transferring engineering concepts?" > > Charles Nelson > > On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: > >> Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and >> that, for >> me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I havent really put >> it this >> way to myself. Whats so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? >> >> We cant control the new contexts that our students will will >> choose in the >> future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be >> bound to >> invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, >> skills which >> they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate >> maybe is >> too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just >> prove a >> hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new >> context. > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 05:18:39 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:18:39 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070914041650.A7D4E75804F@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Time to make nice with your local friendly educational psychologist, huh? I don't know if this is still the case, but on many an interview committee I've served on, education degrees were rather frowned upon--as if there were something too simplistic, too little theory driven, too elementary and h.s. oriented about the whole thing. But, the question of learning transfer is one that's been extensively explored among education theorists. Lots of useful ways to think about the problem have emerged (high and low, near and far, + and -, vertical and horizontal), and Rhet Comp would probably benefit from broader exposure to all of those ideas. Still, even there, this is a tricky thing, indeed. Teaching for learning that lasts, that's lithe, and that's living always has a bit of the leap of faith air about it, and underlying the whole series of research questions about how things learned in one setting or arena carry (or not) over to others is the philosophical question of why we should bother to learn x,y,z at all. Is transfer really a good measure of usefulness, value, success? I look at the terms generated by transfer theorizing, and I see immediate applications to, of all things, Poetry Writing, to give just one example (the kind of thinking that can imagine, for instance, the connections between spiral staircases and DNA), but then again I confess to not worrying much about whether the experience of poetry writing leads to quantifiable learning in other arenas. There, I've made the leap of faith--poetry, poetic thinking, a poetic way of being, or the ability to enter a poetic brand of consciousness as inherently valuable whatever these complex states do or dont lead to--and felt no particular urge to discover a formula for the arc of the leap. I trust the leap (whenever I'm not busy utterly mistrusting it, as I so mistrust the leap on the cover of poemcrazy that I've never been able to warm to the book), and then I let it go. And sometimes, my poet brain figures that "transfer" is the entirely wrong way to slice this. Things don't "transfer," maybe, as much as they transform or emerge: bumping up against each other to create new things, eroding each other to reveal new things, contradicting each other to force impasses that might or might not create new paths, and on and on. So, maybe two questions: 1) Why the need to quantify this "transfer" thing at all? and 2) Even if we could quantify it somehow--or do our best to TOE it, would "transfer" really be thing we were after capturing? Perhaps not. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Richard Haswell Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:40 PM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs I can't speak for engineers, but I can imagine a great many situations to which it would not be helpful to transfer engineering concepts. Here's an example. In his autobiography, North of Jamaica, Louis Simpson recounts tells this story about his father, who was an engineer: "My toy train kept flying off the track. My father stuck a wad of putty on to the engine. This slowed it down so that it did not fly off the track. I could no longer imagine that the thing with a lump of putty on its side was a locomotive engine, but he looked on with a satisfied expression. He didnt care what things looked like as long as they worked." Rich On 9/13/07 5:55 PM, "Charles Nelson" wrote: > Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so bad > about NOT transferring engineering concepts?" > > Charles Nelson > > On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: > >> Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and >> that, for >> me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I havent really put >> it this >> way to myself. Whats so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? >> >> We cant control the new contexts that our students will will >> choose in the >> future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be >> bound to >> invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, >> skills which >> they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate >> maybe is >> too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just >> prove a >> hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new >> context. > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 11:00:49 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Irvin Peckham) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:00:49 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs In-Reply-To: <20070914041650.A7D4E75804F@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> References: <20070914041650.A7D4E75804F@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: <7AD49329A9CF384DB714098DB58A62378F5D93@email002.lsu.edu> I'm' on the father's side here, Rich. I spend a lot of my time fixing things. I think transfer is a very useful concept--in fact, I suspect we organize the writing program here around it. Writing skills do of course transfer. I see the five-paragraph knowledge (which is really knowledge or organization--which is a writing skill that can be learned and transferred) transferred in a negative fashion, although in some situations, it works quite well. In my research on the ACT essay, I have seen it work quite well for students in that rhetorical situation. We try to get students to learn that writing comes bundled in genres. That little piece of knowledge is a writing skill that transfers--the skill of course lies in learning how to scope out new genres. ========================================= Irvin Peckham Director of the University Writing Program Louisiana State University ipeckh1@lsu.edu http://www.english.lsu.edu/dept/programs/ugrad/firstyear 225-578-3040 ========================================== -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Kathy Fitch Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:19 PM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs Time to make nice with your local friendly educational psychologist, huh? I don't know if this is still the case, but on many an interview committee I've served on, education degrees were rather frowned upon--as if there were something too simplistic, too little theory driven, too elementary and h.s. oriented about the whole thing. But, the question of learning transfer is one that's been extensively explored among education theorists. Lots of useful ways to think about the problem have emerged (high and low, near and far, + and -, vertical and horizontal), and Rhet Comp would probably benefit from broader exposure to all of those ideas. Still, even there, this is a tricky thing, indeed. Teaching for learning that lasts, that's lithe, and that's living always has a bit of the leap of faith air about it, and underlying the whole series of research questions about how things learned in one setting or arena carry (or not) over to others is the philosophical question of why we should bother to learn x,y,z at all. Is transfer really a good measure of usefulness, value, success? I look at the terms generated by transfer theorizing, and I see immediate applications to, of all things, Poetry Writing, to give just one example (the kind of thinking that can imagine, for instance, the connections between spiral staircases and DNA), but then again I confess to not worrying much about whether the experience of poetry writing leads to quantifiable learning in other arenas. There, I've made the leap of faith--poetry, poetic thinking, a poetic way of being, or the ability to enter a poetic brand of consciousness as inherently valuable whatever these complex states do or don't lead to--and felt no particular urge to discover a formula for the arc of the leap. I trust the leap (whenever I'm not busy utterly mistrusting it, as I so mistrust the leap on the cover of poemcrazy that I've never been able to warm to the book), and then I let it go. And sometimes, my poet brain figures that "transfer" is the entirely wrong way to slice this. Things don't "transfer," maybe, as much as they transform or emerge: bumping up against each other to create new things, eroding each other to reveal new things, contradicting each other to force impasses that might or might not create new paths, and on and on. So, maybe two questions: 1) Why the need to quantify this "transfer" thing at all? and 2) Even if we could quantify it somehow--or do our best to TOE it, would "transfer" really be thing we were after capturing? Perhaps not. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Richard Haswell Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:40 PM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1252 - 4 msgs I can't speak for engineers, but I can imagine a great many situations to which it would not be helpful to transfer engineering concepts. Here's an example. In his autobiography, North of Jamaica, Louis Simpson recounts tells this story about his father, who was an engineer: "My toy train kept flying off the track. My father stuck a wad of putty on to the engine. This slowed it down so that it did not fly off the track. I could no longer imagine that the thing with a lump of putty on its side was a locomotive engine, but he looked on with a satisfied expression. He didnt care what things looked like as long as they worked." Rich On 9/13/07 5:55 PM, "Charles Nelson" wrote: > Can you imagine an engineering professor who said, "What's so bad > about NOT transferring engineering concepts?" > > Charles Nelson > > On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Rich Haswell wrote: > >> Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and >> that, for >> me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I havent really put >> it this >> way to myself. Whats so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? >> >> We cant control the new contexts that our students will will >> choose in the >> future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be >> bound to >> invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, >> skills which >> they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate >> maybe is >> too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just >> prove a >> hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new >> context. > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 12:55:17 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Message-ID: I wrote a nice long post in response to several posts last night that has entirely disappeared. I don't have the heart to re-write it, so I'll just say that I lauded Michael Carter's article "The Idea of Expertise" as one of the most helpful I've ever read in sorting out skills vs heuristics and discussing when heuristics and rules help and when they just aren't enough or can hurt. His claim that without some heuristics and rules, novices in new writing situations couldn't write at all continues to fascinate me and strike me as one reason why I shouldn't give up on FYC and other "general skills" writing classes (I realize that's a loaded term, but I can't help using it). But to today's issues: Kathy's question (one of them), why study writing transfer at all, is one that has come up over and over during the past four years as I've studied and discussed this topic. I would like to mention why *I* think we must study transfer and why I think demonstrating that FYC teaches something transferable is an entirely different question than whether poetry class teaches us something transferable. That is: FYC *promises* by its very nature and existence to teach something transferable. That initial promise was not ours, but we have been mantled with it and we keep carrying that mantle even though most of our research is pretty clear that writing classes aren't inoculations. As long as we carry the mantle of FYC, as long as the goals for FYC are anything like "prepare students to write in X," as long as every student is required to take FYC--then we have a responsibility to know the effects of what we are doing there. Poetry class is entirely different. Of course it has consequences, but no one has piled all the world's expectations onto the poetry class. No one has ever claimed (as far as I know) that learning to write poetry in one class is now going to prepare you for all subsequent writing. As I see it, then, until we manage to re-imagine FYC and get out from under the load of ridiculous expectations (it doesn't matter whether we agree with those expectations--our stakeholders have them and that's the thing that matters), we have a responsibility to know whether the goals for the class are achievable. And, in part, that is about whether what we teach there is helpful and generalizable later. That's the big reason I study transfer. The other one is just personal teacher curiosity--is what I am spending so much time and effort doing having an impact later? And, if not, what else can I do? Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 13:16:33 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:16:33 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Activity systems, rhetorical awareness, and value of thing learned Message-ID: CHRIS WROTE: So students are already "activity theorists" of a sort, though their analysis of their local, temporal situations may be more driven by considerations of performance than anything else, and may also be somewhat tacit. Here we are, teaching them to analyze their rhetorical situations and "read" the cultures and contexts of their writing, and they're doing it anyway. Maybe we can tap into some of their own language and frames of reference--the psyching out part? KATHY WROTE: underlying the whole series of research questions about how things learned in one setting or arena carry (or not) over to others is the philosophical question of why we should bother to learn x,y,z at all. Is transfer really a good measure of usefulness, value, success? ** These two comments might seem unrelated, but I don't think they are. If my brain will work this early, I want to try to comment on how they are related. One of the first things I started wondering once I was two or three years into my longitudinal study is whether students needed what they had learned in FYC at all. In interviews they mentioned things they learned in FYC, even as juniors, but they then proceeded to show and tell me all the ways they managed not to use those things or didn't need them--sometimes because it was easier to "psych out their teachers" and sometimes (a lot of times) because the subsequent writing tasks were fairly uncomplicated and did not require much from the students in terms of generalization or even real effort (remember McCarthy's saying in "Stranger in Strange Lands" that all the school writing tasks were pretty similar?). The way they navigated all these situations and were able to exert least effort for best result was with superb rhetorical awareness--which they had long before they came into FYC. So what I've been thinking about a lot is the the activity of schooling in general. Students generally are quite skilled at figuring out what will get the schoolwork done in a way that requires least effort from them. And the nature of most of our schooling allows that (I'm not sure it can be otherwise, really, but maybe project-based integrative learning would result in something different). Part of the reason school-to-work transfer studies have been so very rich is that the school-based strategies stop working very well at that point and then the former student really does have to generalize/transfer in order to succeed. Let me see if I can extrapolate a clear point: *I think it is reasonable in any transfer study to first question the value of what is taught and not blindly look for evidence of transfer. *Second, it is reasonable to ask why or why not something transferred by examining the activity systems in which the person is acting. *Third, it is reasonable to expect that a lot of new things can be done with very little generalization/transfer--but that doesn't necessarily mean the initial learned skill didn't have value. *Fourth, transfer isn't always good. Successful writing is often as much about knowing what *not* to call on. Sometimes poor writing is due to bad transfer (think of Perl's study of Tony and all his rule confusion). Happy Friday, Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com From: Chris Anson Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/13/2007 08:42AM Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] Welcome Back! These are great points, Doug. So students are already "activity theorists" of a sort, though their analysis of their local, temporal situations may be more driven by considerations of performance than anything else, and may also be somewhat tacit. Here we are, teaching them to analyze their rhetorical situations and "read" the cultures and contexts of their writing, and they're doing it anyway. Maybe we can tap into some of their own language and frames of reference--the psyching out part? Your other point is really interesting from a systemic perspective. Are we hiding a belief (that little transfers) in order to protect the entire industry of composition? (When any of us here explains to faculty in other disciplines that we think writing is largely contextually determined and situated, and that students "learn anew" in each new situation, we get looks of utter incredulity, as if a chemist had said there is no such thing as a law of causation). But let's bring that assumption back for greater scrutiny. We need to know what we mean by the "what" that does or does not transfer, because there's no question that all sorts of things are, in fact, learned and are transported--carried--with writers from place to place (Rich Haswell, Marilyn Sternglass, Barbara Walvoord, Lucille McCarthy, and others, especially those who have done longitudinal and cross-context studies of novice writers, have documented some of this). And how "largely" is writing contextually determined and situated? Can we really even estimate that? Are some writers better at "adaptation" than others? (There's been a considerable body of research in social psychology on the question of social adaptation--that some people are high and some low social adaptors, meaning they willingly change themselves to "fit in" to a particular group at a particular time, or they tend to be the same person regardless of the consequences for acceptance or alienation. We ought to be able to study how readily writers figure out contexts and situations when they write, in something more than a Flower/Hayes "write about your job for readers of Seventeen Magazine" sort of way.) Chris On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Doug Downs wrote: I'm powerfully struck with the point Tiane and Elizabeth cite from Rogers that "Writing is not perceived by students as a generalizable skill." It suggests that students *already* infer some version of what Rich suggests we tell them, "Be willing to discard any skill I've taught." It correlates, in my mind, with the perpetual student awareness -- and complaint -- that they have to "figure out" anew every single professor -- what does *this* one want in writing? On that basis, it makes sense they don't perceive writing as a generalizable skill. One of the things that fascinates me about this is the conflicting cultural script that writing is a basic, foundational skill: learn once, write many. By *that* assumption, which underwrites the very existence of FYC, writing is a generalizable skill. (If university administrators and faculty and parents didn't believe this, FYC would be gone in the blink of an eye, I think.) What happens? Students *complain* that they have to relearn to write for every single professor -- but they do expect to. It's an interesting kind of awareness. Tiane and Elizabeth, thanks for a superb module -- can't wait to see how discussion develops. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 "Richard Haswell" < rhaswell@grandecom.net > 09/11/07 9:11 PM >>> Tiane and Elizabeth, An extremely useful module. I appreciate the way you have synopsized a passel of research. It offers a good springboard for discussion and, we all hope, will play its part in pushing people to further inquiry. Writing context emerges in your review as a crucial factor, and that, for me, raises a weird kind of question. At least I haven¹t really put it this way to myself. What¹s so bad about NOT transferring writing skills? We can¹t control the new contexts that our students will will choose in the future, or that will be chosen for them. And some contexts will be bound to invalidate some of the skills we have tried to teach students, skills which they had dutifully demonstrated for us in the course. Invalidate maybe is too strong of a word. But some of our writing strategies will just prove a hindrance in the kind of writing they will have to produce in the new context. So maybe we ought to include in our courses a kind of disclaimer: Be willing, students, to discard any skill I¹ve taught. Maybe a strategy we should teach is strategic forgetting. I¹m reminded again‹fortunately it keeps happening‹of Wordsworth¹s venerable insight: If you¹ve forgotten something, it probably isn¹t important. Rich Haswell _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. -- Chris M. Anson [Web site] Professor of English Director, Campus Writing & Speaking Program Box 8105, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8105 (919) 513-4080 From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 15:13:02 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Charles Nelson) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1253 - 5 msgs In-Reply-To: <200709140148.l8E1mMSk003213@localhost.eppg.com> References: <200709140148.l8E1mMSk003213@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: Kate wrote: > I never "got" calculus until I took physics... That reminds me of a doctoral student in mathematics who once told, as I was having problems with linear algebra, that it wasn't until he had moved about 2 classes past the present one that he really understood the concepts of the present one. "Abstract" concepts take time to soak in. Neal wrote: > Well, Charles' comments make me think that if you put five engineers > in a room, they might not necessarily agree on what key "engineering > concepts" are, particularly if one is a chemical engineer, another a > mechanical engineer, another a computer engineer, another a > biological engineer, and the last a civil engineer. The concept > might get boiled down to the ability to solve problems, but then I > had a very interesting conversation with an engineering faculty > member last spring who told me that he doesn't necessarily want his > students to be good problem solvers, he wants them to be good problem > choosers. So, we might compare the different engineering faculties to different, very different, categories of writing: creative writing, business writing, writings in the humanities, and so on. But even so, all of the engineering faculties begin with common courses in math and physics: intro physics, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations. That's somewhat similar to people's expectations for FYC: it's a common intro course for writing across faculties. I've heard that, too, about the problem choosing. To recognize good problems would seem to be a more complex level of thinking than solving problems. Of course, if you choose the right problem, you still need to solve it. > My point here (if I have one, that is) is that transferability quite > often gets reduced to talk of skills on the one hand or abstract > abilities on the other. New learning is based on prior learning, for > sure, but that's what is new looks very different from what came > before is also highly likely. That sure makes it hard to measure. I would not say that abstract abilities are different from so-called "lower" skills. Whether it's the SAT or synthesizing, it's a matter of one experience building upon another, of complexifying one's understanding of particular tasks and activities. Perhaps for analytical purposes, it's useful to differentiate between skills and abstract abilities, but from a learning perspective, it's a continuum without discrete distinctions between the two. What is abstract thinking at one level becomes a skill for a more complex level, and so on. Charles Nelson From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 16:03:09 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Chris Anson) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:03:09 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1253 - 5 msgs In-Reply-To: References: <200709140148.l8E1mMSk003213@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: <6D0F6605-9621-47B1-9C22-DD2F23209847@ncsu.edu> --Apple-Mail-104-1021592000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed And I wonder about the process of automaticity and habituation. When I write a complaint to a company, I'm sure that some of what I do has become automatized (that is, some of my decisions don't require a lot of conscious thought, such as how to begin). Back to driving: before automaticity, novice drivers focus deliberately on specific tasks (for a while I watched my son go through a conscious routine after pulling into the driveway. Occasionally he'd forget one action, such as putting the car into park before shutting off the engine, until that became completely automatized and unconscious. Experienced drivers do several things at the same time while they are thinking of something utterly unrelated to driving.) But watch what happens to automatized routines when you change one task. When people learn to stick-shift (who have driven automatics for a while), automatized tasks pop back into consciousness, such as checking in the rearview mirror and turning on your blinker while trying to remember where you go on the H and when to engage the clutch. So, to complicate the process of an abstract ability becoming a skill, perhaps this relationship itself constantly varies: what's become a skill in an automatized context reverts to an abstract (need- for-consciousness) process in a new context. If I want to write about a concern to my chancellor, do I rely on my automatized company- complaint routines? Probably not; "how to begin" now requires a different kind of (more complex) thinking. On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Charles Nelson wrote: > > I would not say that abstract abilities are different from so- > called "lower" skills. Whether it's the SAT or synthesizing, it's a > matter of one experience building upon another, of complexifying > one's understanding of particular tasks and activities. Perhaps for > analytical purposes, it's useful to differentiate between skills > and abstract abilities, but from a learning perspective, it's a > continuum without discrete distinctions between the two. What is > abstract thinking at one level becomes a skill for a more complex > level, and so on. > > Charles Nelson > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/ > listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. -- Chris M. Anson [Web site] Professor of English Director, Campus Writing & Speaking Program Box 8105, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-8105 (919) 513-4080 --Apple-Mail-104-1021592000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
And I wonder about the = process of automaticity and habituation. When I write a complaint to a = company, I'm sure that some of what I do has become automatized (that = is, some of my decisions don't require a lot of conscious thought, such = as how to begin). Back to driving: before automaticity, novice drivers = focus deliberately on specific tasks (for a while I watched my son go = through a conscious routine after pulling into the driveway. = Occasionally he'd forget one action, such as putting the car into park = before shutting off the engine, until that became completely automatized = and unconscious. Experienced drivers do several things at the same time = while they are thinking of something utterly unrelated to = driving.)

But = watch what happens to automatized routines when you change one task. = When people learn to stick-shift (who have driven automatics for a = while), automatized tasks pop back into consciousness, such as checking = in the rearview mirror and turning on your blinker while trying to = remember where you go on the H and when to engage the = clutch.=A0

So, = to complicate the process of an abstract ability becoming a skill, = perhaps this relationship itself constantly varies: what's become a = skill in an automatized context reverts to an abstract = (need-for-consciousness) process in a new context.=A0 If I want to write = about a concern to my chancellor, do I rely on my automatized = company-complaint routines? Probably not; "how to begin" now requires a = different kind of (more complex) thinking.



On Sep 14, 2007, = at 10:13 AM, Charles Nelson wrote:


I would = not say that abstract abilities are different from so-called "lower" = skills. Whether it's the SAT or synthesizing, it's a matter of one = experience building upon another, of complexifying one's understanding = of particular tasks and activities. Perhaps for analytical purposes, = it's useful to differentiate between skills and abstract abilities, but = from a learning perspective, it's a continuum without discrete = distinctions between the two. What is abstract thinking at one level = becomes a skill for a more complex level, and so on.

Charles = Nelson

Teaching_Composition maillist=A0 -=A0 Teaching_Composition= @mailman.eppg.com

To = unsubscribe, please visit htt= p://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and = update your information.

--=A0
Chris = M. Anson=A0[Web = site]
Professor of = English=A0
Director,=A0Campus Writing & Speaking Program
Box = 8105,=A0North Carolina State University=A0
Raleigh, NC=A0 = 27695-8105=A0
(919) 513-4080

= --Apple-Mail-104-1021592000-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 18:21:16 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:21:16 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070914165640.073091C805F@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Yes, you're on to something important, there, Elizabeth: it's that mantle of expectations that FYC must cope with that's key. I'm thinking of your recent FYC as Intro to Writing Studies, then, and wondering how that work meshes with this. The article seems to proclaim that FYC should shrug off that mantle in favor of turning more inward, in a sense, and envisioning itself as a true intro to the discipline rather than as a service course. How do you see that work and this work feeding each other? I chose the study of Poetry as an example because talk of transfer theory always seems to me to edge up on questions of critical thinking and creativity. Could be that a course focused on creativity (as FYC, I think, used to be much more than it is now with the turn away from expressivist approaches, and the separation from literature) would actually offer something *more* in the way of transferable thinking (critical, creative) skills, and this might be, ironically, partially because it is relatively free of that pressure to prove its worth. To me, it seems notable that successful transfer of writing skills is in many ways less about the writing itself (the thing that the transfer pressure seems to center on) than about the meta skills, like --Dwelling comfortably in the land of "no single correct answer" --Understanding that "no single correct answer" doesn't mean that some answers aren't better than others in the instance at hand. --Formulating questions. --Switching critical lenses with growing ease, and recognizing that one's critical lens influences what one sees. --Honing the perceptual skills that feed the pool of "intellectual raw data" that makes complex conceptions possible. --Knowing how to move from both the general to the specific (deduction) and the specific to the general (induction). --Understanding and appreciating both fixed and organic forms. --Developing a willingness to be an explorer, not an expert. --Conversely, knowing how to identify and emulate the moves and marks of the expert. --Making cross-disciplinary, cross-media connections. --Willingly setting aside the widely accepted "correct" answers to explore other options. --Considering the moral and ethical domains. --And so many others. Quite agree with the person who noted that when students bemoan having to read each teacher, they're actually demonstrating that they are acquiring some of these skills. These aren't always convenient sorts of skills to have, since putting them into play entails complicated (if satisfying) work, but if students have the ability to put them into play, then something good has happened, fussing aside. Perhaps the goal, here, is less to shape pedagogy in response to transfer pressures, and more to shape the nature of how transfer is understood as it applies to writing. Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 18:39:22 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Charles Nelson) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:39:22 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer as remixing In-Reply-To: <200709141417.l8EEHNYu003445@localhost.eppg.com> References: <200709141417.l8EEHNYu003445@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: <5C0883FA-C0A7-4E68-88DE-3D029EED4AF7@gmail.com> Kathy wrote: > And sometimes, my poet brain figures that "transfer" is the > entirely wrong > way to slice this. Things don't "transfer," maybe, as much as they > transform or emerge: bumping up against each other to create new > things, > eroding each other to reveal new things, contradicting each other > to force > impasses that might or might not create new paths, and on and on. I think "transfer" in some ways is a useful term, but it can obscure the nature of what happens during "transfer." Along the lines of Kathy's point, I would say that nothing transfers unchanged. Moving from one activity to another, chunks of knowledge or actions are remixed as a result of encountering contradictions between how the chunks were used in one activity and the need to perform a different action or activity. So, if we want to enable our students to transfer knowledge from FYC or any other course to other contexts, then we need to identify those chunks most fruitful for remixing across writing contexts and have students practice remixing those chunks across contexts. Charles Nelson From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 19:29:58 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:29:58 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer as remixing In-Reply-To: <5C0883FA-C0A7-4E68-88DE-3D029EED4AF7@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0065A0D985257356_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" This is exactly why activity theorists and others entirely eschew the word "transfer." The old view of transfer--that you carry one thing from place A to place B--has been farily well discredited by many educational psychologists (or at least by the ones I like!). That is why I use the term "generalization" with King Beach--because, as Kathy and Charles note, the real trick is to take something you know and use it in ways that are appropriate for new contexts, which surely involves expansion and generalization. EW Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu Charles Nelson Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 09/14/2007 01:39 PM Please respond to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com cc Subject [Teaching_Composition] Transfer as remixing Kathy wrote: > And sometimes, my poet brain figures that "transfer" is the > entirely wrong > way to slice this. Things don't "transfer," maybe, as much as they > transform or emerge: bumping up against each other to create new > things, > eroding each other to reveal new things, contradicting each other > to force > impasses that might or might not create new paths, and on and on. I think "transfer" in some ways is a useful term, but it can obscure the nature of what happens during "transfer." Along the lines of Kathy's point, I would say that nothing transfers unchanged. Moving from one activity to another, chunks of knowledge or actions are remixed as a result of encountering contradictions between how the chunks were used in one activity and the need to perform a different action or activity. So, if we want to enable our students to transfer knowledge from FYC or any other course to other contexts, then we need to identify those chunks most fruitful for remixing across writing contexts and have students practice remixing those chunks across contexts. Charles Nelson _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=_alternative 0065A0D985257356_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
This is exactly why activity theorists and others entirely eschew the word "transfer." The old view of transfer--that you carry one thing from place A to place B--has been farily well discredited by many educational psychologists (or at least by the ones I like!). That is why I use the term "generalization" with King Beach--because, as Kathy and Charles note, the real trick is to take something you know and use it in ways that are appropriate for new contexts, which surely involves expansion and generalization.

EW

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu


Charles Nelson <charles.p.nelson@gmail.com>
Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com

09/14/2007 01:39 PM
Please respond to
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
To
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
cc
Subject
[Teaching_Composition] Transfer as remixing





Kathy wrote:

> And sometimes, my poet brain figures that "transfer" is the  
> entirely wrong
> way to slice this.  Things don't "transfer," maybe, as much as they
> transform or emerge:  bumping up against each other to create new  
> things,
> eroding each other to reveal new things, contradicting each other  
> to force
> impasses that might or might not create new paths, and on and on.

I think "transfer" in some ways is a useful term, but it can obscure  
the nature of what happens during "transfer." Along the lines of  
Kathy's point, I would say that nothing transfers unchanged. Moving  
from one activity to another, chunks of knowledge or actions are  
remixed as a result of encountering contradictions between how the  
chunks were used in one activity and the need to perform a different  
action or activity. So, if we want to enable our students to transfer  
knowledge from FYC or any other course to other contexts, then we  
need to identify those chunks most fruitful for remixing across  
writing contexts and have students practice remixing those chunks  
across contexts.

Charles Nelson


_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition

To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information.
--=_alternative 0065A0D985257356_=-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 20:27:45 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kate McKinney) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:27:45 +0000 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer as remixing Message-ID: I like "generalization," as well, and even more for its Elementary Ed. connotations; the relationship between writing and thinking (as Savannah eloquently argued) is bedrock to intellectual development. Being able to externalize and formalize thought MUST be a generalizable skill. My favorite bullet from the module's "Transfer is more likely to occur when..." list is: "Learners engage in self-reflection and mindfulness"(cited). It speaks to metacognition and...accountability? I can say "accountability" without being antagonistic towards my students, because I am referring to my own accountability, as well. I feel (and veterans may wince here) I need to explain the motivations behind my methods constantly--precisely because I am trying to teach something they can generalize. "I won't GIVE you an outline," I say (as they glare) "because I'm not teaching you an outline. I'm trying to teach you a process." I am constantly reminding them that THE POINT IS to generalize these "skills" (and here I mean more perspectives, frames, processes). (The next time I remind them, I'm gonna use the "remix" analogy). I also have this feeling that if they *perceive* (or believe?) that they can generalize, then they will---kind of like a yogi walking through fire thinking "I'm cool," diving into a conversation, "faking it until you make it"...? --Kate McKinney NCSU PS It is finally raining in Raleigh, NC. >From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer as remixing >Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:29:58 -0400 > >This is exactly why activity theorists and others entirely eschew the word >"transfer." The old view of transfer--that you carry one thing from place >A to place B--has been farily well discredited by many educational >psychologists (or at least by the ones I like!). That is why I use the >term "generalization" with King Beach--because, as Kathy and Charles note, >the real trick is to take something you know and use it in ways that are >appropriate for new contexts, which surely involves expansion and >generalization. > >EW > >Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >Assistant Professor >Director of Writing Programs >Internship Coordinator >Department of English >Humanities 277 >University of Dayton >Dayton, Ohio >937-229-3003 >ewardle@udayton.edu > > > >Charles Nelson >Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >09/14/2007 01:39 PM >Please respond to >teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > > >To >teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >cc > >Subject >[Teaching_Composition] Transfer as remixing > > > > > > >Kathy wrote: > > > And sometimes, my poet brain figures that "transfer" is the > > entirely wrong > > way to slice this. Things don't "transfer," maybe, as much as they > > transform or emerge: bumping up against each other to create new > > things, > > eroding each other to reveal new things, contradicting each other > > to force > > impasses that might or might not create new paths, and on and on. > >I think "transfer" in some ways is a useful term, but it can obscure >the nature of what happens during "transfer." Along the lines of >Kathy's point, I would say that nothing transfers unchanged. Moving >from one activity to another, chunks of knowledge or actions are >remixed as a result of encountering contradictions between how the >chunks were used in one activity and the need to perform a different >action or activity. So, if we want to enable our students to transfer >knowledge from FYC or any other course to other contexts, then we >need to identify those chunks most fruitful for remixing across >writing contexts and have students practice remixing those chunks >across contexts. > >Charles Nelson > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >your information. > _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail : crez votre adresse e-mail gratuite & vie ! http://www.msn.fr/newhotmail/Default.asp?Ath=f From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 20:32:16 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Doug Downs) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:32:16 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] RE: Why study transfer? Message-ID: <46EA8E5E0200001A0002661F@mail-out.email.uvsc.edu> Good stuff, Kathy -- I love your dash-list farther down in your note and the observation that so much of what probably successfully generalizes (not a term I'm more comfortable with than "transfer", but I'll try it on) is *thinking* stuff, habits of mind-- like mental *stances* and *assumptions* that frame the act of writing. The research showing that *mindfulness* aids trans -- er, generalization -- mindfulness is another habit of mind, essentially a meta-consciousness at the end of one (learning) act -- "What did I just learn?" -- and the beginning of a (far) "application" act -- "What does this look like / What do I know already that might help me here?" Mindfulness like the mental habit of *connecting*: How is THIS like THAT? Etc., etc., etc. If it would be okay if I offer an answer, in addition to whatever Elizabeth says, on the connection between FYC's "mantle of transfer" and the stance our CCC article advocated: to say "fyc should be taught like other intro classes to a discipline, by teaching students what writing researchers know about writing" could be seen as a "we don't want to be a service course" move, but that's quite some distance from how we think about it. The other way you can think about it, as we do, is to say that an introduction to writing should introduce specialized knowledge *in the service of* the larger university mission of helping students become more able and more prepared writers. If one considers FYC's service mission and the possibility of transfer/generalization and comes to the answer that 1) nothing transfers and/or that 2) FYC must inevitably fail in its service mission to the university, it seems to us that the only intellectually honest and ethical next move is to advocate for the abolishment of FYC as a universal requirement. Sharon Crowley and several contributors to Petraglia's collection do this beautifully. That we explicitly reject abolishment, then, suggests that we happily accept FYC's mantle of service even as we argue that many traditional "how-to"-focused FYC courses aren't teaching transferable knowledge/skills. What -- I hope -- the CCC article advocates is a *greater* concern for service and transfer, and it offers one particular suggestion for how to teach for transfer. Partly because it's so obvious that we sort of forgot to mention it, the CCC article doesn't emphasize *rhetorical* knowledge as being transferable; to us, the categories and heuristics that rhetorical thinking provides writers are among the most fundamental generalizable knowledge that a writing class can teach. But there are better and worse ways to teach rhetorical knowledge to less experienced writers, and assigning an argument paper and then focusing on making sure they know what "logos, ethos, and pathos" are is probably one of the less effective ways, if what you're after is mindfulness and generalizability. I've seen precious few FYC course designs that really emphasize for students not simply "analyze your audience" but "the shape of your writing is *already* contained in the situation and context, if you know where to look," and helping them develop the habit of mind of looking to their situation (including circumstances, activity, appropriate genre, discourse/community, purpose, audience values and expectations) to discover what to say and how. One of the quickest ways to show students that, and how, successful/experienced writers do such things is to show them, firsthand, the studies where writing researchers have observed and described experienced writers doing exactly these things. So that's a connection we see between "fyc as intro to writing studies" and teaching for transfer in a service course. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 >>> "Kathy Fitch" 09/14/07 11:21 AM >>> Yes, you're on to something important, there, Elizabeth: it's that mantle of expectations that FYC must cope with that's key. I'm thinking of your recent FYC as Intro to Writing Studies, then, and wondering how that work meshes with this. The article seems to proclaim that FYC should shrug off that mantle in favor of turning more inward, in a sense, and envisioning itself as a true intro to the discipline rather than as a service course. How do you see that work and this work feeding each other? I chose the study of Poetry as an example because talk of transfer theory always seems to me to edge up on questions of critical thinking and creativity. Could be that a course focused on creativity (as FYC, I think, used to be much more than it is now with the turn away from expressivist approaches, and the separation from literature) would actually offer something *more* in the way of transferable thinking (critical, creative) skills, and this might be, ironically, partially because it is relatively free of that pressure to prove its worth. To me, it seems notable that successful transfer of writing skills is in many ways less about the writing itself (the thing that the transfer pressure seems to center on) than about the meta skills, like --Dwelling comfortably in the land of "no single correct answer" --Understanding that "no single correct answer" doesn't mean that some answers aren't better than others in the instance at hand. --Formulating questions. --Switching critical lenses with growing ease, and recognizing that one's critical lens influences what one sees. --Honing the perceptual skills that feed the pool of "intellectual raw data" that makes complex conceptions possible. --Knowing how to move from both the general to the specific (deduction) and the specific to the general (induction). --Understanding and appreciating both fixed and organic forms. --Developing a willingness to be an explorer, not an expert. --Conversely, knowing how to identify and emulate the moves and marks of the expert. --Making cross-disciplinary, cross-media connections. --Willingly setting aside the widely accepted "correct" answers to explore other options. --Considering the moral and ethical domains. --And so many others. Quite agree with the person who noted that when students bemoan having to read each teacher, they're actually demonstrating that they are acquiring some of these skills. These aren't always convenient sorts of skills to have, since putting them into play entails complicated (if satisfying) work, but if students have the ability to put them into play, then something good has happened, fussing aside. Perhaps the goal, here, is less to shape pedagogy in response to transfer pressures, and more to shape the nature of how transfer is understood as it applies to writing. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 20:48:56 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:48:56 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <20070914165640.073091C805F@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 006CDBE685257356_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Your question about how my work on transfer meshes with my recent CCCs article is a really good one. I have this split: my theoretical/research desires and my WPA requirements. You are right, I think FYC *should* rid itself of the mantle of unreasonable expectations about the teaching of writing. But I am not at all hopeful that this can happen within the current system. As long as one course at the beginning of college is required of everyone and called first-year composition and has as its goal to prepare students for college--well, the unreasonable expectations will remain, I am afraid. They are too entrenched. That's why Doug and I call for a complete re-envisioning of those courses. And in another article forthcoming I say that this change might mean such courses won't be required of all students at all schools and maybe that is ok because it would go a long way toward alleviating our labor problems. But then I am also a WPA. I run a writing program every day. And I can't run it on theoretical wishing. As my husband likes to say, "Don't confuse the ideas in your head with the reality in which you live." As a WPA I have to look at the courses we offer and the research I have and try to match them as best I can. And I have stakeholders who want assessment reports every year and faculty members in other disciplines who want to know "why students can't write." And the more data and research I have about the issue of transfer, among other things, the better. And if my research shows that transfer is really problematic and doesn't happen like we want it to and we can locate the reasons for that (which, at least in my research, are linked a great deal to the *lack* of complex writing assignments in courses after FYC) then we might be able to change the entire current *system* so that it is more in line with the fantasy system in my head. Maybe this is way too honest an answer and I am probably talking too much (sorry, Chris) but this split has been of interest to me for several years now and continues to intrigue me. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 09/14/2007 01:21 PM Please respond to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To cc Subject RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Yes, you're on to something important, there, Elizabeth: it's that mantle of expectations that FYC must cope with that's key. I'm thinking of your recent FYC as Intro to Writing Studies, then, and wondering how that work meshes with this. The article seems to proclaim that FYC should shrug off that mantle in favor of turning more inward, in a sense, and envisioning itself as a true intro to the discipline rather than as a service course. How do you see that work and this work feeding each other? I chose the study of Poetry as an example because talk of transfer theory always seems to me to edge up on questions of critical thinking and creativity. Could be that a course focused on creativity (as FYC, I think, used to be much more than it is now with the turn away from expressivist approaches, and the separation from literature) would actually offer something *more* in the way of transferable thinking (critical, creative) skills, and this might be, ironically, partially because it is relatively free of that pressure to prove its worth. To me, it seems notable that successful transfer of writing skills is in many ways less about the writing itself (the thing that the transfer pressure seems to center on) than about the meta skills, like --Dwelling comfortably in the land of "no single correct answer" --Understanding that "no single correct answer" doesn't mean that some answers aren't better than others in the instance at hand. --Formulating questions. --Switching critical lenses with growing ease, and recognizing that one's critical lens influences what one sees. --Honing the perceptual skills that feed the pool of "intellectual raw data" that makes complex conceptions possible. --Knowing how to move from both the general to the specific (deduction) and the specific to the general (induction). --Understanding and appreciating both fixed and organic forms. --Developing a willingness to be an explorer, not an expert. --Conversely, knowing how to identify and emulate the moves and marks of the expert. --Making cross-disciplinary, cross-media connections. --Willingly setting aside the widely accepted "correct" answers to explore other options. --Considering the moral and ethical domains. --And so many others. Quite agree with the person who noted that when students bemoan having to read each teacher, they're actually demonstrating that they are acquiring some of these skills. These aren't always convenient sorts of skills to have, since putting them into play entails complicated (if satisfying) work, but if students have the ability to put them into play, then something good has happened, fussing aside. Perhaps the goal, here, is less to shape pedagogy in response to transfer pressures, and more to shape the nature of how transfer is understood as it applies to writing. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=_alternative 006CDBE685257356_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Your question about how my work  on transfer meshes with my recent CCCs article is a really good one. I have this split: my theoretical/research desires and my WPA requirements.

You are right, I think FYC *should* rid itself of the mantle of unreasonable expectations about the teaching of writing. But I am not at all hopeful that this can happen within the current system. As long as one course at the beginning of college is required of everyone and called first-year composition and has as its goal to prepare students for college--well, the unreasonable expectations will remain, I am afraid. They are too entrenched. That's why Doug and I call for a complete re-envisioning of those courses. And in another article forthcoming I say that this change might mean such courses won't be required of all students at all schools and maybe that is ok because it would go a long way toward alleviating our labor problems.

But then I am also a WPA. I run a writing program every day. And I can't run it on theoretical wishing. As my husband likes to say, "Don't confuse the ideas in your head with the reality in which you live." As a WPA I have to look at the courses we offer and the research I have and try to match them as best I can. And I have stakeholders who want assessment reports every year and faculty members in other disciplines who want to know "why students can't write." And the more data and research I have about the issue of transfer, among other things, the better. And if my research shows that transfer is really problematic and doesn't happen like we want it to and we can locate the reasons for that (which, at least in my research, are linked a great deal to the *lack* of complex writing assignments in courses after FYC) then we might be able to change the entire current *system* so that it is more in line with the fantasy system in my head.

Maybe this is way too honest an answer and I am probably talking too much (sorry, Chris) but this split has been of interest to me for several years now and continues to intrigue me.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu


"Kathy Fitch" <kfitch@kafkaz.net>
Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com

09/14/2007 01:21 PM
Please respond to
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
To
<teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com>
cc
Subject
RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer?





Yes, you're on to something important, there, Elizabeth:  it's that mantle
of expectations that FYC must cope with that's key.  I'm thinking of your
recent FYC as Intro to Writing Studies, then, and wondering how that work
meshes with this.  The article seems to proclaim that FYC should shrug off
that mantle in favor of turning more inward, in a sense, and envisioning
itself as a true intro to the discipline rather than as a service course.
How do you see that work and this work feeding each other?  

I chose the study of Poetry as an example because talk of transfer theory
always seems to me to edge up on questions of critical thinking and
creativity. Could be that a course focused on creativity (as FYC, I think,
used to be much more than it is now with the turn away from expressivist
approaches, and the separation from literature) would actually offer
something *more* in the way of transferable thinking (critical, creative)
skills, and this might be, ironically, partially because it is relatively
free of that pressure to prove its worth.

To me, it seems notable that successful transfer of writing skills is in
many ways less about the writing itself (the thing that the transfer
pressure seems to center on) than about the meta skills, like

--Dwelling comfortably in the land of "no single correct answer"
--Understanding that "no single correct answer" doesn't mean that some
answers aren't better than others in the instance at hand.
--Formulating questions.
--Switching critical lenses with growing ease, and recognizing that one's
critical lens influences what one sees.
--Honing the perceptual skills that feed the pool of "intellectual raw data"
that makes complex conceptions possible.
--Knowing how to move from both the general to the specific (deduction) and
the specific to the general (induction).
--Understanding and appreciating both fixed and organic forms.
--Developing a willingness to be an explorer, not an expert.
--Conversely, knowing how to identify and emulate the moves and marks of the
expert.
--Making cross-disciplinary, cross-media connections.
--Willingly setting aside the widely accepted "correct" answers to explore
other options.
--Considering the moral and ethical domains.
--And so many others.  

Quite agree with the person who noted that when students bemoan having to
read each teacher, they're actually demonstrating that they are acquiring
some of these skills.  These aren't always convenient sorts of skills to
have, since putting them into play entails complicated (if satisfying) work,
but if students have the ability to put them into play, then something good
has happened, fussing aside.

Perhaps the goal, here, is less to shape pedagogy in response to transfer
pressures, and more to shape the nature of how transfer is understood as it
applies to writing.

Kathy







_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition

To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information.
--=_alternative 006CDBE685257356_=-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 20:56:11 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Doug Downs) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:56:11 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] RE: Why study transfer? Message-ID: <46EA93F90200001A00026635@mail-out.email.uvsc.edu> Forgot to add one more point regarding Elizabeth's and my CCC article: If it feels like we're making a strong point that strengthening our own discipline is one advantage of an fyc-as-intro-to-writing-studies pedagogy, we are. A student who takes Biology, Astronomy, or Chemistry 101 comes away from the class knowing without a doubt, if they didn't before, that there is a field of people whose primary job is to research biology, astronomy, or chemistry. A student who takes most FYC classes could *very easily* come away not being aware that Writing, too, is a *researchable* and *researched* field, just like every other field they sample in their -101 courses. (I have survey data demonstrating precisely this: students in FYC-as-writing-studies courses say one thing they were surprised to learn is that there are people who study and research writing; students in more "standard" FYC-as-academic-argument courses gain no such awareness.) That knowledge itself, ironically, is a kind of generalizable knowledge: our argument is that if the field consistently presented itself to FYC students as a researchable and researched field, maybe 20 years from now when 4% have gone on to grad school, 1% have earned phds, and some small number of those are chairs, deans, and provosts, our field might enjoy broader currency in the university community as a researchable and researched field rather than as *only* a skills-based, remedial instruction unit, and that broader awareness might translate into cooperation and resources that better enables us to do FYC under the mantle of service. So we would disagree that our desire for increased awareness among students of our field as researchable and researched can only be fueled by a desire to move away from FYC as a service/gen ed course. Exactly the opposite is the case. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 14 21:28:52 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Charles Nelson) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:28:52 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1256 - 6 msgs In-Reply-To: <200709141951.l8EJpLIX013151@localhost.eppg.com> References: <200709141951.l8EJpLIX013151@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: <5A475506-B3CF-4B1E-9819-7C4964C52792@gmail.com> I keep thinking about other disciplines. It's hard for me to imagine introductory courses in other disciplines (especially the sciences but also others) focusing on "meta skills". They focus on content specific to their discipline. Meta skills are part of every discipline, but they are acquired only the way. In undergraduate courses, especially introductory courses, the focus is on the content of the discipline. To talk about transfer, we should have some content specific to writing, perhaps along the lines of Downs and Wardles' article in CCC. What is it that we want to see transfer from FYC to and remix in other courses? Charles Nelson Kathy wrote: > To me, it seems notable that successful transfer of writing skills > is in > many ways less about the writing itself (the thing that the transfer > pressure seems to center on) than about the meta skills, like > > --Dwelling comfortably in the land of "no single correct answer" > --Understanding that "no single correct answer" doesn't mean that some > answers aren't better than others in the instance at hand. > --Formulating questions. > --Switching critical lenses with growing ease, and recognizing that > one's > critical lens influences what one sees. > --Honing the perceptual skills that feed the pool of "intellectual raw > data" > that makes complex conceptions possible. > --Knowing how to move from both the general to the specific > (deduction) > and > the specific to the general (induction). > --Understanding and appreciating both fixed and organic forms. > --Developing a willingness to be an explorer, not an expert. > --Conversely, knowing how to identify and emulate the moves and > marks of > the > expert. > --Making cross-disciplinary, cross-media connections. > --Willingly setting aside the widely accepted "correct" answers to > explore > other options. > --Considering the moral and ethical domains. > --And so many others. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Sat Sep 15 17:22:18 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070915162036.253E4758051@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_017E_01C7F78A.AF7DC030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think it's possible to talk too much, here, Elizabeth. The conversation is the thing! Russ Hunt always says, "If it's good in theory, but it's not good in practice, then it's not good in theory." (Or something along those lines. Apologies to Russ if that's not quite exact, but it's the spirit of thing, at least.) It can be a tough thing this living, seeing, and working through all of these often contradictory lenses simultaneously: writer, writing teacher, assessment guru, administrator, colleague, idealist, visionary, scholar, etc. Russ's observation about the theory/practice relationship seems wise, if difficult. But, I'd love to hear more about this part: <(which, at least in my research, are linked a great deal to the *lack* of complex writing assignments in courses after FYC)> Kathy _____ From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 2:49 PM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Your question about how my work on transfer meshes with my recent CCCs article is a really good one. I have this split: my theoretical/research desires and my WPA requirements. You are right, I think FYC *should* rid itself of the mantle of unreasonable expectations about the teaching of writing. But I am not at all hopeful that this can happen within the current system. As long as one course at the beginning of college is required of everyone and called first-year composition and has as its goal to prepare students for college--well, the unreasonable expectations will remain, I am afraid. They are too entrenched. That's why Doug and I call for a complete re-envisioning of those courses. And in another article forthcoming I say that this change might mean such courses won't be required of all students at all schools and maybe that is ok because it would go a long way toward alleviating our labor problems. But then I am also a WPA. I run a writing program every day. And I can't run it on theoretical wishing. As my husband likes to say, "Don't confuse the ideas in your head with the reality in which you live." As a WPA I have to look at the courses we offer and the research I have and try to match them as best I can. And I have stakeholders who want assessment reports every year and faculty members in other disciplines who want to know "why students can't write." And the more data and research I have about the issue of transfer, among other things, the better. And if my research shows that transfer is really problematic and doesn't happen like we want it to and we can locate the reasons for that (which, at least in my research, are linked a great deal to the *lack* of complex writing assignments in courses after FYC) then we might be able to change the entire current *system* so that it is more in line with the fantasy system in my head. Maybe this is way too honest an answer and I am probably talking too much (sorry, Chris) but this split has been of interest to me for several years now and continues to intrigue me. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 09/14/2007 01:21 PM Please respond to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To cc Subject RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Yes, you're on to something important, there, Elizabeth: it's that mantle of expectations that FYC must cope with that's key. I'm thinking of your recent FYC as Intro to Writing Studies, then, and wondering how that work meshes with this. The article seems to proclaim that FYC should shrug off that mantle in favor of turning more inward, in a sense, and envisioning itself as a true intro to the discipline rather than as a service course. How do you see that work and this work feeding each other? I chose the study of Poetry as an example because talk of transfer theory always seems to me to edge up on questions of critical thinking and creativity. Could be that a course focused on creativity (as FYC, I think, used to be much more than it is now with the turn away from expressivist approaches, and the separation from literature) would actually offer something *more* in the way of transferable thinking (critical, creative) skills, and this might be, ironically, partially because it is relatively free of that pressure to prove its worth. To me, it seems notable that successful transfer of writing skills is in many ways less about the writing itself (the thing that the transfer pressure seems to center on) than about the meta skills, like --Dwelling comfortably in the land of "no single correct answer" --Understanding that "no single correct answer" doesn't mean that some answers aren't better than others in the instance at hand. --Formulating questions. --Switching critical lenses with growing ease, and recognizing that one's critical lens influences what one sees. --Honing the perceptual skills that feed the pool of "intellectual raw data" that makes complex conceptions possible. --Knowing how to move from both the general to the specific (deduction) and the specific to the general (induction). --Understanding and appreciating both fixed and organic forms. --Developing a willingness to be an explorer, not an expert. --Conversely, knowing how to identify and emulate the moves and marks of the expert. --Making cross-disciplinary, cross-media connections. --Willingly setting aside the widely accepted "correct" answers to explore other options. --Considering the moral and ethical domains. --And so many others. Quite agree with the person who noted that when students bemoan having to read each teacher, they're actually demonstrating that they are acquiring some of these skills. These aren't always convenient sorts of skills to have, since putting them into play entails complicated (if satisfying) work, but if students have the ability to put them into play, then something good has happened, fussing aside. Perhaps the goal, here, is less to shape pedagogy in response to transfer pressures, and more to shape the nature of how transfer is understood as it applies to writing. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. ------=_NextPart_000_017E_01C7F78A.AF7DC030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don’t think it’s = possible to talk too much, here, Elizabeth.  The conversation is the = thing!

 

Russ Hunt always says, “If = it’s good in theory, but it’s not good in practice, then it’s not = good in theory.”  (Or something along those lines.  Apologies = to Russ if that’s not quite exact, but it’s the spirit of = thing, at least.) 

 

It can be a tough thing this = living, seeing, and working through all of these often contradictory lenses simultaneously:  writer, writing teacher, assessment guru, = administrator, colleague, idealist, visionary, scholar, etc.  Russ’s = observation about the theory/practice relationship seems wise, if = difficult.

 

But, I’d love to hear more = about this part:

 

<(which, at least in my research, are linked a great deal to the *lack* of = complex writing assignments in courses after = FYC)>

 

Kathy

 

 

From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu
Sent: Friday, September = 14, 2007 2:49 PM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer?

 


Your question about how my work  on = transfer meshes with my recent CCCs article is a really good one. I have this = split: my theoretical/research desires and my WPA requirements.

You are right, I think FYC *should* rid itself of the mantle of unreasonable expectations about the teaching of writing. But I am not at all hopeful = that this can happen within the current system. As long as one course at the beginning of college is required of everyone and called first-year = composition and has as its goal to prepare students for college--well, the = unreasonable expectations will remain, I am afraid. They are too entrenched. That's = why Doug and I call for a complete re-envisioning of those courses. And in = another article forthcoming I say that this change might mean such courses won't = be required of all students at all schools and maybe that is ok because it = would go a long way toward alleviating our labor problems.

But then I am also a WPA. I run a writing program every day. And I can't run = it on theoretical wishing. As my husband likes to say, "Don't confuse the = ideas in your head with the reality in which you live." As a WPA I have = to look at the courses we offer and the research I have and try to match them as = best I can. And I have stakeholders who want assessment reports every year and = faculty members in other disciplines who want to know "why students can't write." And the more data and research I have about the issue of = transfer, among other things, the better. And if my research shows that transfer = is really problematic and doesn't happen like we want it to and we can = locate the reasons for that (which, at least in my research, are linked a great = deal to the *lack* of complex writing assignments in courses after FYC) then we = might be able to change the entire current *system* so that it is more in line = with the fantasy system in my head.

Maybe this is way too honest an answer and I am probably talking too much = (sorry, Chris) but this split has been of interest to me for several years now = and continues to intrigue me.

Elizabeth=

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu

"Kathy Fitch" <kfitch@kafkaz.net>
Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com =

09/14/2007 01:21 PM

Please respond to
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com

To

<teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com&g= t;

cc

 

Subject

RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer?

 

 

 




Yes, you're on to something important, there, Elizabeth:  it's that = mantle
of expectations that FYC must cope with = that's key.  I'm thinking of your
recent FYC as Intro to Writing Studies, = then, and wondering how that work
meshes with this.  The article seems = to proclaim that FYC should shrug off
that mantle in favor of turning more = inward, in a sense, and envisioning
itself as a true intro to the discipline = rather than as a service course.
How do you see that work and this work = feeding each other?  

I chose the study of Poetry as an example = because talk of transfer theory
always seems to me to edge up on = questions of critical thinking and
creativity. Could be that a course = focused on creativity (as FYC, I think,
used to be much more than it is now with = the turn away from expressivist
approaches, and the separation from = literature) would actually offer
something *more* in the way of = transferable thinking (critical, creative)
skills, and this might be, ironically, = partially because it is relatively
free of that pressure to prove its = worth.

To me, it seems notable that successful = transfer of writing skills is in
many ways less about the writing itself = (the thing that the transfer
pressure seems to center on) than about = the meta skills, like

--Dwelling comfortably in the land of = "no single correct answer"
--Understanding that "no single = correct answer" doesn't mean that some
answers aren't better than others in the = instance at hand.
--Formulating questions.
--Switching critical lenses with growing = ease, and recognizing that one's
critical lens influences what one = sees.
--Honing the perceptual skills that feed = the pool of "intellectual raw data"
that makes complex conceptions = possible.
--Knowing how to move from both the = general to the specific (deduction) and
the specific to the general = (induction).
--Understanding and appreciating both = fixed and organic forms.
--Developing a willingness to be an = explorer, not an expert.
--Conversely, knowing how to identify and = emulate the moves and marks of the
expert.
--Making cross-disciplinary, cross-media connections.
--Willingly setting aside the widely = accepted "correct" answers to explore
other options.
--Considering the moral and ethical = domains.
--And so many others. =  

Quite agree with the person who noted = that when students bemoan having to
read each teacher, they're actually = demonstrating that they are acquiring
some of these skills.  These aren't = always convenient sorts of skills to
have, since putting them into play = entails complicated (if satisfying) work,
but if students have the ability to put = them into play, then something good
has happened, fussing = aside.

Perhaps the goal, here, is less to shape = pedagogy in response to transfer
pressures, and more to shape the nature = of how transfer is understood as it
applies to writing.

Kathy







_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition=

To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update = your information.

------=_NextPart_000_017E_01C7F78A.AF7DC030-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 18 15:28:59 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Alvaro Mena) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:28:59 -0700 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Alvaro Mena wants to chat Message-ID: <3fee30990709180728l5e7c6f54v@mail.gmail.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Mena wants to stay in better touch using some of Google's coolest new products. If you already have Gmail or Google Talk, visit: http://mail.google.com/mail/b-686e262d03-1e68b85464-8ec86a95f7e091f2 You'll need to click this link to be able to chat with Alvaro Mena. To get Gmail - a free email account from Google with over 2,800 megabytes of storage - and chat with Alvaro Mena, visit: http://mail.google.com/mail/a-686e262d03-1e68b85464-5412be44b3 Gmail offers: - Instant messaging right inside Gmail - Powerful spam protection - Built-in search for finding your messages and a helpful way of organizing emails into "conversations" - No pop-up ads or untargeted banners - just text ads and related information that are relevant to the content of your messages All this, and its yours for free. But wait, there's more! By opening a Gmail account, you also get access to Google Talk, Google's instant messaging service: http://www.google.com/talk/ Google Talk offers: - Web-based chat that you can use anywhere, without a download - A contact list that's synchronized with your Gmail account - Free, high quality PC-to-PC voice calls when you download the Google Talk client Gmail and Google Talk are still in beta. We're working hard to add new features and make improvements, so we might also ask for your comments and suggestions periodically. We appreciate your help in making our products even better! Thanks, The Google Team To learn more about Gmail and Google Talk, visit: http://mail.google.com/mail/help/about.html http://www.google.com/talk/about.html (If clicking the URLs in this message does not work, copy and paste them into the address bar of your browser). From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 18 16:28:32 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Glenn Blalock) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:28:32 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews Message-ID: <002c01c7fa08$934bcfd0$6701a8c0@GlennBlalock> For those who missed our initial announcement last month: This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the difficulties of keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion included the wish that new books would receive more reviews more promptly. We promised to establish a CompPile feature that would address these concerns. We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on the CompPile homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for 2006 or 2007. Books are categorized by publishing house for ease of browsing, with an alternative listing by author. This list is still in progress. The lists from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah State UP, Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, Greenwood Press, Jossey-Bass, etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical writing, ESL, rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses (Bedford/St. Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get them done. Were hoping that the publishers will help us update their lists. The page also has a link for viewers to submit titles of books that weve missed, or books hot off the press. The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows users to submit reviews or notices of any of the books listed in "New/Recent Books," and to respond or supplement reviews already submitted. Were not looking for full-fledged review essays, but any description of the contents of a book that will help readers get a sense of it. For edited collections, readers might choose to share a review of one or two of the essays in the collection without feeling compelled to offer a review of the entire collection. In other words, we envision many ways that this feature might be useful. Do you have a new book at hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or approach or usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get a sense of it. Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this professional service rolling. Rich and Glenn From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 18 17:04:21 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (J.Rice) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:04:21 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews In-Reply-To: <002c01c7fa08$934bcfd0$6701a8c0@GlennBlalock> References: <002c01c7fa08$934bcfd0$6701a8c0@GlennBlalock> Message-ID: <46EFF705.1070801@missouri.edu> Hi Glenn Any reason why you are not including SIUP books? Jeff Glenn Blalock wrote: > For those who missed our initial announcement last month: > > This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the difficulties of > keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion included the > wish that new books would receive more reviews more promptly. We promised to > establish a CompPile feature that would address these concerns. > > We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on the CompPile > homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). > > One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for 2006 or 2007. Books > are categorized by publishing house for ease of browsing, with an > alternative listing by author. This list is still in progress. The lists > from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah State UP, > Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, Greenwood Press, Jossey-Bass, > etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical writing, ESL, > rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses (Bedford/St. > Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get them done. Were > hoping that the publishers will help us update their lists. The page also > has a link for viewers to submit titles of books that weve missed, or books > hot off the press. > > The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows users to submit > reviews or notices of any of the books listed in "New/Recent Books," and to > respond or supplement reviews already submitted. Were not looking for > full-fledged review essays, but any description of the contents of a book > that will help readers get a sense of it. For edited collections, readers > might choose to share a review of one or two of the essays in the collection > without feeling compelled to offer a review of the entire collection. In > other words, we envision many ways that this feature might be useful. Do > you have a new book at hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or > approach or usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get a > sense of it. > > Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this professional > service rolling. > > Rich and Glenn > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. > -- ----------------------- Director of Composition University of Missouri-Columbia http://english.missouri.edu/~ricejr/ http://www.ydog.net From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 18 17:44:49 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Richard Haswell) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:44:49 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews In-Reply-To: <46EFF705.1070801@missouri.edu> Message-ID: Jeff, We just haven't yet got around to working up SIUP's relevant books yet. It's the same reason other major presses don't yet appear on the page: Cambridge UP, NCTE, Lang, Multilingual Matters, Open UP, Hampton, etc. Eventually they all will. Rich On 9/18/07 11:04 AM, "J.Rice" wrote: > > Hi Glenn > > Any reason why you are not including SIUP books? > > Jeff > > Glenn Blalock wrote: >> For those who missed our initial announcement last month: >> >> This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the difficulties of >> keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion included the >> wish that new books would receive more reviews more promptly. We promised to >> establish a CompPile feature that would address these concerns. >> >> We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on the CompPile >> homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). >> >> One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for 2006 or 2007. Books >> are categorized by publishing house for ease of browsing, with an >> alternative listing by author. This list is still in progress. The lists >> from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah State UP, >> Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, Greenwood Press, Jossey-Bass, >> etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical writing, ESL, >> rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses (Bedford/St. >> Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get them done. Were >> hoping that the publishers will help us update their lists. The page also >> has a link for viewers to submit titles of books that weve missed, or books >> hot off the press. >> >> The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows users to submit >> reviews or notices of any of the books listed in "New/Recent Books," and to >> respond or supplement reviews already submitted. Were not looking for >> full-fledged review essays, but any description of the contents of a book >> that will help readers get a sense of it. For edited collections, readers >> might choose to share a review of one or two of the essays in the collection >> without feeling compelled to offer a review of the entire collection. In >> other words, we envision many ways that this feature might be useful. Do >> you have a new book at hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or >> approach or usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get a >> sense of it. >> >> Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this professional >> service rolling. >> >> Rich and Glenn >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your >> information. >> > From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 18 19:52:05 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Glenn Blalock) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:52:05 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews In-Reply-To: <46EFF705.1070801@missouri.edu> References: <002c01c7fa08$934bcfd0$6701a8c0@GlennBlalock> <46EFF705.1070801@missouri.edu> Message-ID: <004701c7fa25$049499d0$6701a8c0@GlennBlalock> Jeff, The SIUP list is being indexed / keyworded now, so it will appear soon. Right now, only three of us are working on this part of CompPile: Rich, me, and my grad assistant. Volunteers are always welcome. Thanks for asking. I should add a note to that page to indicate that some publisher lists are "in progress." Glenn > -----Original Message----- > From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On > Behalf Of J.Rice > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:04 AM > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent > Books and Reviews > > > Hi Glenn > > Any reason why you are not including SIUP books? > > Jeff > > Glenn Blalock wrote: > > For those who missed our initial announcement last month: > > > > This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the > difficulties > > of keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion > > included the wish that new books would receive more reviews more > > promptly. We promised to establish a CompPile feature that > would address these concerns. > > > > We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on > the CompPile > > homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). > > > > One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for > 2006 or 2007. > > Books are categorized by publishing house for ease of > browsing, with > > an alternative listing by author. This list is still in > progress. The > > lists from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah > > State UP, Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, > Greenwood Press, > > Jossey-Bass, > > etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical > writing, ESL, > > rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses > (Bedford/St. > > Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get > them done. > > Were hoping that the publishers will help us update their > lists. The > > page also has a link for viewers to submit titles of books > that weve > > missed, or books hot off the press. > > > > The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows > users to submit > > reviews or notices of any of the books listed in > "New/Recent Books," > > and to respond or supplement reviews already submitted. Were not > > looking for full-fledged review essays, but any description of the > > contents of a book that will help readers get a sense of it. For > > edited collections, readers might choose to share a review > of one or > > two of the essays in the collection without feeling > compelled to offer > > a review of the entire collection. In other words, we > envision many > > ways that this feature might be useful. Do you have a new book at > > hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or approach or > > usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get > a sense of it. > > > > Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this > > professional service rolling. > > > > Rich and Glenn > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Teaching_Composition maillist - > > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > and update your information. > > > > > -- > > > > > > ----------------------- > Director of Composition > University of Missouri-Columbia > http://english.missouri.edu/~ricejr/ > http://www.ydog.net > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 19 00:25:37 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:25:37 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Message-ID: Kathy Wrote: "I’d love to hear more about this part: <(which, at least in my research, are linked a great deal to the *lack* of complex writing assignments in courses after FYC)>" Well, I am still in the midst of my research (in the 4th year) and still have lots of data analysis to do, but from initial assessments I am seeing a couple of things: *The students in my study generally do not feel challenged by the writing tasks they are asked to complete (after FYC) *Because they don't feel challenged, they seem to do pretty well on the assignments without having to draw in very complex ways on things they learned elsewhere. We have a lot of conversations that go like this: Me: What did you write this semester? Student: X, Y, and Z. Me: Did you find those difficult or challenging? Student: Not really Me: Tell me about the processes you used to complete them. Student: Well, I wrote it shortly before it was due, did a little last minute editing. Now, I know that I would have written a better paper if I had planned in advance, done more global editing, did more in-depth research, etc, but I didn't have to. Me: Why didn't you have to? Student: I got a pretty good grade with what I did. It didn't seem to matter whether I did more global revision [or whatever other writing-related thing we worked on in FYC]. I mean, I know I could. I just didn't need to. That is the most common type of conversation we have. Granted, these are honors students, so I never suggest that what is happening for them is typical of all students. But it's typical for them. Then there is the "I could have done something interesting and complex but why bother" conversation that I have with them sometimes. These go something like this: Me: Did any of these assignments challenge or engage you? Student: Well, this one *could* have. Me: Why didn't it? Student: Well, the teacher obviously wanted us to really engage with the question of what we believe about X (ie, white collar crime) and compare our beliefs with the laws and available opinions. But I knew what the teacher wanted to hear so I just said that. Me: Why did you do that? Student: School really isn't the place to get into what you think and all that. I mean, I just give the teacher what he wants. It's easier--and safer. Me: Do you engage in that kind of conversation/writing outside of school? Student: Oh yeah, all the time. Me: Would the paper have been more challenging or difficult if you had really done what the teacher asked? Student: Sure, but why would I do that? It's just an exercise. I mean, I could have done it. I would have had to do more research and spend more time comparing the laws with my view and backing up my view. But I know how to do that. I just don't see why I should. I mean, I got an A. I said what the teacher wanted to hear. The research on transfer traditionally understood tends to suggest that transfer doesn't occur much in school settings. My research suggests a similar thing, but the activity lens I am using encourages me to ask *why* that is the case. And what I am coming back to time and again is that the activities of schooling themselves, and the way students interpret and engage with those activities, are where we need to focus our attention. The students aren't deficient, so the traditional individual view of transfer doesn't work (they know what to do, they just figure out how not to do it or when they don't need to do it and the system enables this). It's clear to me from the language the students use when talking to me (and the things they do and write when they really *are* challenged) that they know a lot about writing and can draw on it in useful ways when they want to/really have to. But, I have to tell you, those moments of students being engaged and truly and deeply generalizing seem few and far between. The moments when students do generalize will be worth really analyzing in detail, when I get to that stage. What I've been seeing has been both discouraging and fascinating. Transfer is wrapped up with so many other things we do have good research and theory about--the problems of psuedotransactionality, "Engfish," student engagement and motivation, resistance, identity, genre awareness, WAC, and on and on. It's extremely complicated, especially when you add the fact that transfer isn't always necessary for learning to occur or for the goal of the text to be achieved. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 19 01:42:09 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:42:09 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] More thoughts on transfer Message-ID: Hi everyone, I apologize for being silent in the discussion so far. I was away and had some trouble accessing the discussion. I've tried to catch up through reading earlier messages and will just offer a few ideas here; I look forward to more interaction. "Nothing transfers unchanged," said Charles. That very bakhtinian perspective highlights for me the point about any kind of discursive interaction. It is remix (nice term!), reformulation, reuse that is always modification (there is a great scholar in France, F. Franois, who works on this in discourse analysis and shows precisely how it works). But if we are to know what's most fruitful for remixing, we would need to know--really, to live--the other contexts into which students move. That is what writing in the disciplines folks work on, or learn through talking with colleagues, or through studying writing in other fields and contexts, with mixed success because you can only live in so many universes fully.That seems true to me even when we're focusing on rhetorical strategy, since that also is discipline-specific. I wonder to what degree it is connections among faculty (rather than the focus on each student) that might enable generalization. And I second Elizabeth on "generalization"/extension. One advantage is that it is lateral, diffuse, while transfer implies linear movement or at least gets picked up that way. As for disciplinary work, a few thoughts--I think mindfulness *is* part of disciplinary work, at least in intro classes I've observed at my institution, especially those using WAC strategies like "muddiest point" cards or quick writing shots about learning. I'm not sure students in these classes walk away knowing people do research in, say, biology or anthropology, but I do know from the preliminary results of my longitudinal study that the students walk away from general education courses (as compared to courses in a major) quite aware of--can articulate--differences in writing structures, writing needs, expectations, approaches, even style and sentence-level issues in different broad fields. Thanks, Tiane (Christiane) Donahue From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 19 18:24:57 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Foster, Helen) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:24:57 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] RE: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1260 - 6 msgs In-Reply-To: <200709191601.l8JG11GE021969@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: <3C0D95285246BA469BFB81952AD614C217A771@itdsrvmail05.utep.edu> Glenn - You might also want to include books from Parlor Press. Helen -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:01 AM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1260 - 6 msgs Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com You can reach the person managing the list at teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews (J.Rice) 2. Re: New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews (Richard Haswell) 3. RE: New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews (Glenn Blalock) 4. RE: Why study transfer? (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) 5. More thoughts on transfer (Christiane Donahue) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:04:21 -0500 From: "J.Rice" To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Hi Glenn Any reason why you are not including SIUP books? Jeff Glenn Blalock wrote: > For those who missed our initial announcement last month: > > This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the difficulties of > keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion included the > wish that new books would receive more reviews more promptly. We promised to > establish a CompPile feature that would address these concerns. > > We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on the CompPile > homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). > > One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for 2006 or 2007. Books > are categorized by publishing house for ease of browsing, with an > alternative listing by author. This list is still in progress. The lists > from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah State UP, > Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, Greenwood Press, Jossey-Bass, > etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical writing, ESL, > rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses (Bedford/St. > Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get them done. We¹re > hoping that the publishers will help us update their lists. The page also > has a link for viewers to submit titles of books that we¹ve missed, or books > hot off the press. > > The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows users to submit > reviews or notices of any of the books listed in "New/Recent Books," and to > respond or supplement reviews already submitted. We¹re not looking for > full-fledged review essays, but any description of the contents of a book > that will help readers get a sense of it. For edited collections, readers > might choose to share a review of one or two of the essays in the collection > without feeling compelled to offer a review of the entire collection. In > other words, we envision many ways that this feature might be useful. Do > you have a new book at hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or > approach or usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get a > sense of it. > > Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this professional > service rolling. > > Rich and Glenn > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. > -- ----------------------- Director of Composition University of Missouri-Columbia http://english.missouri.edu/~ricejr/ http://www.ydog.net --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:44:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews From: Richard Haswell To: Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Jeff, We just haven't yet got around to working up SIUP's relevant books yet. It's the same reason other major presses don't yet appear on the page: Cambridge UP, NCTE, Lang, Multilingual Matters, Open UP, Hampton, etc. Eventually they all will. Rich On 9/18/07 11:04 AM, "J.Rice" wrote: > > Hi Glenn > > Any reason why you are not including SIUP books? > > Jeff > > Glenn Blalock wrote: >> For those who missed our initial announcement last month: >> >> This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the difficulties of >> keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion included the >> wish that new books would receive more reviews more promptly. We promised to >> establish a CompPile feature that would address these concerns. >> >> We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on the CompPile >> homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). >> >> One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for 2006 or 2007. Books >> are categorized by publishing house for ease of browsing, with an >> alternative listing by author. This list is still in progress. The lists >> from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah State UP, >> Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, Greenwood Press, Jossey-Bass, >> etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical writing, ESL, >> rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses (Bedford/St. >> Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get them done. We¹re >> hoping that the publishers will help us update their lists. The page also >> has a link for viewers to submit titles of books that we¹ve missed, or books >> hot off the press. >> >> The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows users to submit >> reviews or notices of any of the books listed in "New/Recent Books," and to >> respond or supplement reviews already submitted. We¹re not looking for >> full-fledged review essays, but any description of the contents of a book >> that will help readers get a sense of it. For edited collections, readers >> might choose to share a review of one or two of the essays in the collection >> without feeling compelled to offer a review of the entire collection. In >> other words, we envision many ways that this feature might be useful. Do >> you have a new book at hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or >> approach or usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get a >> sense of it. >> >> Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this professional >> service rolling. >> >> Rich and Glenn >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your >> information. >> > --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "Glenn Blalock" To: , "'J.Rice'" Cc: "'Richard Haswell'" Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:52:05 -0500 Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Jeff, The SIUP list is being indexed / keyworded now, so it will appear soon. Right now, only three of us are working on this part of CompPile: Rich, me, and my grad assistant. Volunteers are always welcome. Thanks for asking. I should add a note to that page to indicate that some publisher lists are "in progress." Glenn > -----Original Message----- > From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On > Behalf Of J.Rice > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:04 AM > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent > Books and Reviews > > > Hi Glenn > > Any reason why you are not including SIUP books? > > Jeff > > Glenn Blalock wrote: > > For those who missed our initial announcement last month: > > > > This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the > difficulties > > of keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion > > included the wish that new books would receive more reviews more > > promptly. We promised to establish a CompPile feature that > would address these concerns. > > > > We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on > the CompPile > > homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). > > > > One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for > 2006 or 2007. > > Books are categorized by publishing house for ease of > browsing, with > > an alternative listing by author. This list is still in > progress. The > > lists from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah > > State UP, Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, > Greenwood Press, > > Jossey-Bass, > > etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical > writing, ESL, > > rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses > (Bedford/St. > > Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get > them done. > > We¹re hoping that the publishers will help us update their > lists. The > > page also has a link for viewers to submit titles of books > that we¹ve > > missed, or books hot off the press. > > > > The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows > users to submit > > reviews or notices of any of the books listed in > "New/Recent Books," > > and to respond or supplement reviews already submitted. We¹re not > > looking for full-fledged review essays, but any description of the > > contents of a book that will help readers get a sense of it. For > > edited collections, readers might choose to share a review > of one or > > two of the essays in the collection without feeling > compelled to offer > > a review of the entire collection. In other words, we > envision many > > ways that this feature might be useful. Do you have a new book at > > hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or approach or > > usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get > a sense of it. > > > > Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this > > professional service rolling. > > > > Rich and Glenn > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Teaching_Composition maillist - > > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > and update your information. > > > > > -- > > > > > > ----------------------- > Director of Composition > University of Missouri-Columbia > http://english.missouri.edu/~ricejr/ > http://www.ydog.net > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - > Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > and update your information. --__--__-- Message: 4 Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:25:37 -0400 Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Kathy Wrote: "I’d love to hear more about this part: <(which, at least in my research, are linked a great deal to the *lack* of complex writing assignments in courses after FYC)>" Well, I am still in the midst of my research (in the 4th year) and still have lots of data analysis to do, but from initial assessments I am seeing a couple of things: *The students in my study generally do not feel challenged by the writing tasks they are asked to complete (after FYC) *Because they don't feel challenged, they seem to do pretty well on the assignments without having to draw in very complex ways on things they learned elsewhere. We have a lot of conversations that go like this: Me: What did you write this semester? Student: X, Y, and Z. Me: Did you find those difficult or challenging? Student: Not really Me: Tell me about the processes you used to complete them. Student: Well, I wrote it shortly before it was due, did a little last minute editing. Now, I know that I would have written a better paper if I had planned in advance, done more global editing, did more in-depth research, etc, but I didn't have to. Me: Why didn't you have to? Student: I got a pretty good grade with what I did. It didn't seem to matter whether I did more global revision [or whatever other writing-related thing we worked on in FYC]. I mean, I know I could. I just didn't need to. That is the most common type of conversation we have. Granted, these are honors students, so I never suggest that what is happening for them is typical of all students. But it's typical for them. Then there is the "I could have done something interesting and complex but why bother" conversation that I have with them sometimes. These go something like this: Me: Did any of these assignments challenge or engage you? Student: Well, this one *could* have. Me: Why didn't it? Student: Well, the teacher obviously wanted us to really engage with the question of what we believe about X (ie, white collar crime) and compare our beliefs with the laws and available opinions. But I knew what the teacher wanted to hear so I just said that. Me: Why did you do that? Student: School really isn't the place to get into what you think and all that. I mean, I just give the teacher what he wants. It's easier--and safer. Me: Do you engage in that kind of conversation/writing outside of school? Student: Oh yeah, all the time. Me: Would the paper have been more challenging or difficult if you had really done what the teacher asked? Student: Sure, but why would I do that? It's just an exercise. I mean, I could have done it. I would have had to do more research and spend more time comparing the laws with my view and backing up my view. But I know how to do that. I just don't see why I should. I mean, I got an A. I said what the teacher wanted to hear. The research on transfer traditionally understood tends to suggest that transfer doesn't occur much in school settings. My research suggests a similar thing, but the activity lens I am using encourages me to ask *why* that is the case. And what I am coming back to time and again is that the activities of schooling themselves, and the way students interpret and engage with those activities, are where we need to focus our attention. The students aren't deficient, so the traditional individual view of transfer doesn't work (they know what to do, they just figure out how not to do it or when they don't need to do it and the system enables this). It's clear to me from the language the students use when talking to me (and the things they do and write when they really *are* challenged) that they know a lot about writing and can draw on it in useful ways when they want to/really have to. But, I have to tell you, those moments of students being engaged and truly and deeply generalizing seem few and far between. The moments when students do generalize will be worth really analyzing in detail, when I get to that stage. What I've been seeing has been both discouraging and fascinating. Transfer is wrapped up with so many other things we do have good research and theory about--the problems of psuedotransactionality, "Engfish," student engagement and motivation, resistance, identity, genre awareness, WAC, and on and on. It's extremely complicated, especially when you add the fact that transfer isn't always necessary for learning to occur or for the goal of the text to be achieved. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:42:09 +0200 From: Christiane Donahue To: Subject: [Teaching_Composition] More thoughts on transfer Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Hi everyone, I apologize for being silent in the discussion so far. I was away and had some trouble accessing the discussion. I've tried to catch up through reading earlier messages and will just offer a few ideas here; I look forward to more interaction. "Nothing transfers unchanged," said Charles. That very bakhtinian perspective highlights for me the point about any kind of discursive interaction. It is remix (nice term!), reformulation, reuse that is always modification (there is a great scholar in France, F. François, who works on this in discourse analysis and shows precisely how it works). But if we are to know what's most fruitful for remixing, we would need to know--really, to live--the other contexts into which students move. That is what writing in the disciplines folks work on, or learn through talking with colleagues, or through studying writing in other fields and contexts, with mixed success because you can only live in so many universes fully.That seems true to me even when we're focusing on rhetorical strategy, since that also is discipline-specific. I wonder to what degree it is connections among faculty (rather than the focus on each student) that might enable generalization. And I second Elizabeth on "generalization"/extension. One advantage is that it is lateral, diffuse, while transfer implies linear movement or at least gets picked up that way. As for disciplinary work, a few thoughts--I think mindfulness *is* part of disciplinary work, at least in intro classes I've observed at my institution, especially those using WAC strategies like "muddiest point" cards or quick writing shots about learning. I'm not sure students in these classes walk away knowing people do research in, say, biology or anthropology, but I do know from the preliminary results of my longitudinal study that the students walk away from general education courses (as compared to courses in a major) quite aware of--can articulate--differences in writing structures, writing needs, expectations, approaches, even style and sentence-level issues in different broad fields. Thanks, Tiane (Christiane) Donahue --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition End of Teaching_Composition Digest From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 19 22:24:50 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Richard Haswell) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] RE: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1260 - 6 msgs In-Reply-To: <3C0D95285246BA469BFB81952AD614C217A771@itdsrvmail05.utep.edu> Message-ID: Helen, Parlor Press is there Rich On 9/19/07 12:24 PM, "Foster, Helen" wrote: > Glenn - > > You might also want to include books from Parlor Press. > > Helen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of > teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:01 AM > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1260 - 6 msgs > > Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to > teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews (J.Rice) > 2. Re: New @ CompPile: Recent Books and > Reviews (Richard Haswell) > 3. RE: New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews (Glenn Blalock) > 4. RE: Why study transfer? (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) > 5. More thoughts on transfer (Christiane Donahue) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:04:21 -0500 > From: "J.Rice" > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] New @ CompPile: Recent Books and Reviews > Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > > > Hi Glenn > > Any reason why you are not including SIUP books? > > Jeff > > Glenn Blalock wrote: >> For those who missed our initial announcement last month: >> >> This summer the WPA listserve had a discussion about the difficulties of >> keeping up with the literature in the field. The discussion included the >> wish that new books would receive more reviews more promptly. We promised to >> establish a CompPile feature that would address these concerns. >> >> We now have a start: two sections, both with buttons on the CompPile >> homepage (http://comppile.tamucc.edu/). >> >> One section, "New/Recent Books," lists publications for 2006 or 2007. Books >> are categorized by publishing house for ease of browsing, with an >> alternative listing by author. This list is still in progress. The lists >> from publishers that are currently represented (such as Utah State UP, >> Routledge, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, Erlbaum, Greenwood Press, Jossey-Bass, >> etc.) are, we hope, complete for composition, technical writing, ESL, >> rhetorical studies, and discourse analysis. Other presses (Bedford/St. >> Martin, Longman, NCTE, Hampton, etc.) will appear as we get them done. Were >> hoping that the publishers will help us update their lists. The page also >> has a link for viewers to submit titles of books that weve missed, or books >> hot off the press. >> >> The other section is "Reviews @ CompPile." This allows users to submit >> reviews or notices of any of the books listed in "New/Recent Books," and to >> respond or supplement reviews already submitted. Were not looking for >> full-fledged review essays, but any description of the contents of a book >> that will help readers get a sense of it. For edited collections, readers >> might choose to share a review of one or two of the essays in the collection >> without feeling compelled to offer a review of the entire collection. In >> other words, we envision many ways that this feature might be useful. Do >> you have a new book at hand? Fifteen minutes describing the contents or >> approach or usefulness or unique qualities will help the rest of us get a >> sense of it. >> >> Take a look at these pages, add your bit, and help get this professional >> service rolling. >> >> Rich and Glenn >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your >> information. >> > From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 00:11:48 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070919224554.911181C8026@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> It seems inherently problematic to put too much stock in what student's are saying about how they perceive levels of writing difficulty in their other courses, or what they report about their levels of engagement with those other assignments--especially when this information is elicited in a setting in which it is all too easy to critique the distant other, and pretty tough to critique the discipline (in every sense) of the one doing the asking. I'm curious about how you're avoiding those pitfalls. Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 01:26:55 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:26:55 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Message-ID: Collection of all written texts and text-based interviews. Of course interviews are problematic for a variety of reasons, but I am extremely interested in how they understand the tasks with which they are faced. Ideally I would do more ethnographic research, going to class with them and doing more data gathering during the semester, but I don't have that much time or money, I'm afraid. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: From: "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/19/2007 07:11PM Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? It seems inherently problematic to put too much stock in what student's are saying about how they perceive levels of writing difficulty in their other courses, or what they report about their levels of engagement with those other assignments--especially when this information is elicited in a setting in which it is all too easy to critique the distant other, and pretty tough to critique the discipline (in every sense) of the one doing the asking. I'm curious about how you're avoiding those pitfalls. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 02:02:22 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:02:22 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Right. Any research runs these kinds of risks, and most good research tries to strike a balance among possible methodological drawbacks. It depends partly on how you ask the questions--and partly on whether you pull information from student self-report only or from multiple sources. For example--a question might be "have you noticed anything about the writing you do in different subject areas? (if yes: what?)" or "how do you approach writing assignments now, as a junior? What do you think about, how do you prepare, what is your process?," designed not to invite criticism or praise but description. The questioner's job becomes to track and understand those responses. And a student's writing itself might be studied and analyzed across years, taking into account subject matter, assignment, texts read, etc.--to see what patterns shape and evolve in the student's texts. I think it's less about avoiding pitfalls, more about recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in the full reports. Tiane On 9/20/07 2:26 AM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" wrote: > Collection of all written texts and text-based interviews. Of course > interviews are problematic for a variety of reasons, but I am extremely > interested in how they understand the tasks with which they are faced. > Ideally I would do more ethnographic research, going to class with them and > doing more data gathering during the semester, but I don't have that much > time or money, I'm afraid. > > Elizabeth > > Elizabeth Wardle, PhD > Assistant Professor > Director of Writing Programs > Internship Coordinator > Department of English > Humanities 277 > University of Dayton > Dayton, Ohio > 937-229-3003 > ewardle@udayton.edu > > -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > > To: > From: "Kathy Fitch" > Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > Date: 09/19/2007 07:11PM > Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? > > It seems inherently problematic to put too much stock in what student's are > saying about how they perceive levels of writing difficulty in their other > courses, or what they report about their levels of engagement with those > other assignments--especially when this information is elicited in a > setting > in which it is all too easy to critique the distant other, and pretty tough > to critique the discipline (in every sense) of the one doing the asking. > > I'm curious about how you're avoiding those pitfalls. > > Kathy > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update > your information. > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 03:11:02 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:11:02 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070920020918.4CBC575805D@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in the full reports.>> Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when we are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and so I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc and Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling them about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers are probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at all about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should of course entail. So.) In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher that writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get a question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm for the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out in the writing classroom. Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 12:27:49 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Charles Nelson) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:27:49 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer occurs when needed or wanted In-Reply-To: <200709200211.l8K2BPIB009406@localhost.eppg.com> References: <200709200211.l8K2BPIB009406@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: <335934EC-A591-494C-A5A4-457C0A256F1B@gmail.com> Elizabeth wrote: > so the traditional individual view of transfer > doesn't work (they know what to do, they just figure out how not to > do it > or when they don't need to do it and the system enables this). It's > clear > to me from the language the students use when talking to me (and > the things > they do and write when they really *are* challenged) that they know > a lot > about writing and can draw on it in useful ways when they want to/ > really > have to. I've seen the same thing. One of my students "transferred" Toulmin reasoning to their major of geophysics to make the reading more interesting. Another fyc student expanded on what she learned about creating questionnaires for a "practical proposal" paper to help her brother, a graduate student in pharmacy, to create a questionnaire that went to thousands of people. The "transfer" goes the other direction, too. One student who was having trouble organizing his paper drew up a flow diagram, which he had learned to do in a computer science course, to aid in the process. And the list goes on. As Elizabeth said, they do it either when they "really have to" or "want to." As Elizabeth mentioned in another email, for transfer to become the norm, the university as a system of activity needs to have writing become more complex as students move from one course to another. For that to occur, however, the university system will likely have to perceive a crisis in which it "really [has] to" change. Of course, systems are like students, "they know what to do, they just figure out how not to do it." Charles Nelson From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 13:55:10 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:55:10 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Message-ID: I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some very good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar and are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students in my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage them, teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested to know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it usually is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions that don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know what happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they don't, and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of interview. It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my analytical lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or teacher B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and which don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" very good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a systemic issue, not a teacher issue. Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took a report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a local non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to work with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing that and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had a friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for the client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me multiple what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. He just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; it was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what he did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview on the activities and the system and the way the student understands those rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other teachers. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: From: "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in the full reports.>> Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when we are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and so I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc and Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling them about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers are probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at all about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should of course entail. So.) In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher that writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get a question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm for the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out in the writing classroom. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 14:42:01 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Doug Downs) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:42:01 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <20070920020918.4CBC575805D@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> References: <20070920020918.4CBC575805D@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: <46F22440.3821.001A.0@uvsc.edu> I would have thought that negative reports of English writing courses and activities such as "peer review" (neither word in that term is accurate, but old habits die hard) would precisely be what is *not* news about student perceptions of writing courses. The first reader response workshop we do every semester, one of my favorite moments is talking about Peer Review in ways that most of my students would like to but never quite feel safe doing. They often (though I'm not sure I'd step up to the word "usually") think Peer Review as they have usually encountered it is pointless and a waste of time. They wonder why on earth the most expert reader in the class (the teacher) would refuse to read their work and instead hand it to the most non-expert readers in the class for fixing (because they have learned to understand peer review as fixing, and often feel that they themselves don't understand what they're doing well enough to offer any advice, and they don't trust their "peers" any more than themselves). Time after time after time, "Good Paper, Dude!" from a fellow student stacks up against "I thought your paper had a number of weaknesses" from the teacher. How effective are they *supposed* to think peer review is? What would shock me is a finding that revealed that most students truly think that peer review is usually an effective and helpful use of time. (I often think that one could spend an entire semester working on nothing other than helping students learn to be good readers of each other's work -- and that by the end, you'd actually have taught them a great deal about writing. But that, of course, is not how Tradition has handed peer review down to most of us.) Well, anyway. I wonder how many instructors really do kid themselves about what students think of these courses? Is it mere cynicism that suspects, "Most students think FYC is little more than a hoop"? Hell, I know for many of us the entire *starting point* of FYC design is the presumption that it can very easily be a meaningless experience for students: how can we make a course that students will recognize is not a waste of their time? I think many, if not most, students truly believe, in coming into (particularly second semester) writing courses, that there is nothing else to learn, that it is only more repetition because "practice makes perfect" (writing, of course, being a perfectible sort of thing) and they're "a little rusty." Turning such expectations into meaningful experiences goes right back to the question of what can be generalized from the course. How many students understand that writing, like soccer, bobsledding, piano-playing, and sex, is not in the category of "Things that Can Be Perfected"? If we aren't thinking in terms of the distance between what our students currently believe about the nature of successful writing and writers and what more experienced writers tend to do and think, I'm afraid we're mostly tilting at windmills. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 >>> "Kathy Fitch" 9/19/2007 8:11 PM >>> << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in the full reports.>> Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when we are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and so I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc and Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling them about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers are probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at all about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should of course entail. So.) In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher that writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get a question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm for the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out in the writing classroom. Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 14:52:56 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Doug Downs) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:52:56 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F226D0.3821.001A.0@uvsc.edu> By the way, Elizabeth's preliminary sense of things is consistent with other research, such as the study Susan Miller did with four students (sorry I don't have a cite for this) some time ago. Her students, too, reported rarely encountering writing projects in non-writing classes that forced them to take writing as seriously as they had in their writing classes. Well, what the heck. No class forced me to take astronomy quite as seriously as my astronomy class did. Are we surprised? (Rich Haswell and others have done research suggesting that students write differently for other teachers than for English teachers because of the perception that other teachers will grade their content but not their writing. 'Cause those are separate, of course.) Of course, the existence of the astronomy course was not predicated on the assumption that I would need to be prepared to do astronomy because every other course in the university would require me to have high astronomy "skills." It is the assumption that writing can be taught out of context -- of generalizability -- that puts FYC -- and us -- in such a precarious position. Back again to why it's so important to think in terms of what is generalizable and teach for it. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 >>> 9/20/2007 6:55 AM >>> I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some very good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar and are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students in my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage them, teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested to know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it usually is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions that don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know what happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they don't, and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of interview. It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my analytical lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or teacher B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and which don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" very good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a systemic issue, not a teacher issue. Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took a report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a local non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to work with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing that and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had a friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for the client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me multiple what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. He just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; it was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what he did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview on the activities and the system and the way the student understands those rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other teachers. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: From: "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in the full reports.>> Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when we are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and so I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc and Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling them about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers are probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at all about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should of course entail. So.) In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher that writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get a question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm for the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out in the writing classroom. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 15:08:36 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:08:36 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <46F22440.3821.001A.0@uvsc.edu> Message-ID: <20070920140651.1BBF0758073@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Uh--okay. Meanwhile, I see teachers on lists ask about it all the time, wondering if they're doing something wrong. I, for one, would love to see such wide discussion of alternate approaches that this sense of something being both an expected feature of the course *and* not really working wouldn't be so pervasive. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Doug Downs Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:42 AM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? I would have thought that negative reports of English writing courses and activities such as "peer review" (neither word in that term is accurate, but old habits die hard) would precisely be what is *not* news about student perceptions of writing courses. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 15:02:19 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:02:19 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <20070920020918.4CBC575805D@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: Hi Kathy, Just a quick answer on this for now. I understand the concern (it raises the issue of writing in the disciplines and ownership, as well). I think that a lot depends on why we might choose to do research, too. I know for my own project I have not been looking to discover why writing courses are better or worse than other courses, and the students in the study have generally been quick to point out many valuable experiences they have had in other courses, as well as things that wasted their time (in their perspective) in comp courses. We have a team of six faculty from other disciplines reading and coding the work of the students in the study, so our informal conversations as we discover what we see has been an interesting cross-check as well. I hope people will pursue the kind of research you describe, the questions you put forth--they seem very useful to me. Tiane On 9/20/07 4:11 AM, "Kathy Fitch" wrote: > > << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in > the full reports.>> > > Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I > think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that > blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real > teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when we > are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. > Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about > those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* > like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and so > I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc and > Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling them > about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers are > probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at all > about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should > of course entail. So.) > > In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher that > writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other > courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd > often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, > record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get a > question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than > write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), > group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm for > the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off > the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the > occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when > they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that > they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, > so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say > about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out in > the writing classroom. > > > Kathy > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 15:30:31 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:30:31 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070920142846.3854B758093@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Interesting--I never suggested that a "critique-fest" would carry the day, or even be a concern. What I do wonder is how fully students are able to speak to their approaches to writing classes, and their motivations therein. Doug apparently thinks that he's been there, done that, but I don't share that view. Tiane nicely articulated something more like what concerns me--being aware of the subtleties of questioning students about their private approaches to writing, especially when we're comparing levels of engagement. I imagine if I were the teacher in your example, Elizabeth, that I sure would hear the students' comments as pretty damning. The student cheated, essentially, on my assignment--the whole group dissembled--and I didn't know? I'm not thinking a passing nod to how interesting my assignment was (or could have been) would mollify me much. I doubt we know much at all about the private learning lives of students. I suspect it would be an eye-opener to hear what they say when we're not around. Even course evaluations don't capture it. The articles that your research will generate will make for fantastic reading. (On another, maybe related, note, I had much this same reaction to a recent WPA discussion on autoethnography. Subtle complications involved in assigning students to write in a genre that is inherently non-assignable. I wouldn't argue that we should avoid it, but would say it's complicated enough to be very, very careful about.) I love the turn this has taken away from transfer more narrowly--and probably far less usefully--understood. Fascinating reading. Thanks, all. Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 15:39:33 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Doug Downs) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:39:33 -0600 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <20070920140651.1BBF0758073@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> References: <46F22440.3821.001A.0@uvsc.edu> <20070920140651.1BBF0758073@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: <46F231BC.3821.001A.0@uvsc.edu> Yeah, I think that's what we're both getting at. It's an example of the many ways lots of instructors really don't think too unrealistically about their students' perceptions of writing courses. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 >>> "Kathy Fitch" 9/20/2007 8:08 AM >>> Uh--okay. Meanwhile, I see teachers on lists ask about it all the time, wondering if they're doing something wrong. I, for one, would love to see such wide discussion of alternate approaches that this sense of something being both an expected feature of the course *and* not really working wouldn't be so pervasive. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Doug Downs Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:42 AM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? I would have thought that negative reports of English writing courses and activities such as "peer review" (neither word in that term is accurate, but old habits die hard) would precisely be what is *not* news about student perceptions of writing courses. _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 16:01:15 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:01:15 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <20070920142846.3854B758093@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005285DD8525735C_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >From Kathy's last post, I love this: "I doubt we know much at all about the private learning lives of students." That's how I've felt these four years listening to the students talk to me. I am so completely out of touch with their private learning lives. Even with four years of texts and transcipts and an increasing willingness on their part to tell me sordid details, I still can't really fathom what goes on in students' private learning lives. As a researcher I am trying very, very hard to just listen, not judge, so that the students are willing to talk openly. As a teacher, I am, of course, horrified by what Matt did. As a researcher I am thinking, "I am so happy he was willing to share that with me. How do I understand it? What do I do with it?" And I still don't know. As I said before, the research on transfer has to be about so much more than cogntive skills--it's about personal identity, resistance, genre awareness, rhetorical awareness, time, and on and on. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu --=_alternative 005285DD8525735C_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
From Kathy's last post, I love this:

"I doubt we know much at all about the private learning lives of students."

That's how I've felt these four years listening to the students talk to me. I am so completely out of touch with their private learning lives. Even with four years of texts and transcipts and an increasing willingness on their part to tell me sordid details, I still can't really fathom what goes on in students' private learning lives. As a researcher I am trying very, very hard to just listen, not judge, so that the students are willing to talk openly. As a teacher, I am, of course, horrified by what Matt did. As a researcher I am thinking, "I am so happy he was willing to share that with me. How do I understand it? What do I do with it?" And I still don't know. As I said before, the research on transfer has to be about so much more than cogntive skills--it's about personal identity, resistance, genre awareness, rhetorical awareness, time, and on and on.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu --=_alternative 005285DD8525735C_=-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 16:30:36 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:30:36 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Student Engagement In-Reply-To: <20070920142846.3854B758093@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: <20070920150432.EC70E1C809C@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Since we've moved into thinking together about student engagement, I thought I'd throw this into the mix. Lunch reading! http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 17:57:55 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Heather Lettner-Rust) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer? Message-ID: <20070920125755.DKR51427@mail.longwood.edu> I've been following this discussion closely because it's a topic I beleive applies to a course I teach. My institution has a senior level gen ed citizenship writing seminar (I did a Module for this listserv last Dec-Jan 07). I have seen very interesting issues with students "unable" or "unwilling" to generalize and I am beginning to study why. My question is this: How can I begin to study the issue of transfer/generalization in this course? Is there a way to narrow my collection of data, design of study to a manageable size and still make a contribution to my learning, my colleagues' learning at the institution and beyond? Heather Heather Lettner-Rust English & Modern Languages Dept. Longwood University 201 High Street Farmville, VA 23909 office: 204 Barlow phone: 434.395.2178 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:32:01 -0400 (EDT) >From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1262 - 7 msgs >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to > teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com > >You can reach the person managing the list at > teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Transfer occurs when needed or wanted (Charles Nelson) > 2. RE: Why study transfer? (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) > 3. RE: Why study transfer? (Doug Downs) > 4. RE: Why study transfer? (Doug Downs) > 5. RE: Why study transfer? (Kathy Fitch) > 6. Re: Why study transfer? (Christiane Donahue) > 7. RE: Why study transfer? (Kathy Fitch) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >From: Charles Nelson >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:27:49 -0400 >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer occurs when needed or wanted >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Elizabeth wrote: > >> so the traditional individual view of transfer >> doesn't work (they know what to do, they just figure out how not to >> do it >> or when they don't need to do it and the system enables this). It's >> clear >> to me from the language the students use when talking to me (and >> the things >> they do and write when they really *are* challenged) that they know >> a lot >> about writing and can draw on it in useful ways when they want to/ >> really >> have to. > >I've seen the same thing. One of my students "transferred" Toulmin >reasoning to their major of geophysics to make the reading more >interesting. Another fyc student expanded on what she learned about >creating questionnaires for a "practical proposal" paper to help her >brother, a graduate student in pharmacy, to create a questionnaire >that went to thousands of people. The "transfer" goes the other >direction, too. One student who was having trouble organizing his >paper drew up a flow diagram, which he had learned to do in a >computer science course, to aid in the process. And the list goes on. >As Elizabeth said, they do it either when they "really have to" or >"want to." As Elizabeth mentioned in another email, for transfer to >become the norm, the university as a system of activity needs to have >writing become more complex as students move from one course to >another. For that to occur, however, the university system will >likely have to perceive a crisis in which it "really [has] to" >change. Of course, systems are like students, "they know what to do, >they just figure out how not to do it." > >Charles Nelson > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:55:10 -0400 >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some very >good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar and >are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students in >my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage them, >teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are >excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested to >know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it usually >is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of >interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher >without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. > >I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions that >don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know what >happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they don't, >and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of interview. > >It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my analytical >lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or teacher >B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and which >don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" very >good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a systemic >issue, not a teacher issue. > >Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took a >report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a local >non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to work >with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing that >and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had a >friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him >materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for the >client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me multiple >what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. He >just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; it >was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what he >did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview on >the activities and the system and the way the student understands those >rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other teachers. > >Elizabeth > >Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >Assistant Professor >Director of Writing Programs >Internship Coordinator >Department of English >Humanities 277 >University of Dayton >Dayton, Ohio >937-229-3003 >ewardle@udayton.edu > >-----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > >To: >From: "Kathy Fitch" >Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? > > ><< recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in >the full reports.>> > >Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I >think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real >teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when >we >are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. >Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about >those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* >like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and so >I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc and >Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling them >about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers are >probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at >all >about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should >of course entail. So.) > >In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher >that >writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd >often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, >record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get >a >question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than >write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), >group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm >for >the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off >the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when >they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that >they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, >so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say >about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out >in >the writing classroom. > > >Kathy > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >your information. > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:42:01 -0600 >From: "Doug Downs" >To: >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >I would have thought that negative reports of English writing courses >and activities such as "peer review" (neither word in that term is >accurate, but old habits die hard) would precisely be what is *not* news >about student perceptions of writing courses. > >The first reader response workshop we do every semester, one of my >favorite moments is talking about Peer Review in ways that most of my >students would like to but never quite feel safe doing. They often >(though I'm not sure I'd step up to the word "usually") think Peer >Review as they have usually encountered it is pointless and a waste of >time. They wonder why on earth the most expert reader in the class (the >teacher) would refuse to read their work and instead hand it to the most >non-expert readers in the class for fixing (because they have learned to >understand peer review as fixing, and often feel that they themselves >don't understand what they're doing well enough to offer any advice, and >they don't trust their "peers" any more than themselves). Time after >time after time, "Good Paper, Dude!" from a fellow student stacks up >against "I thought your paper had a number of weaknesses" from the >teacher. How effective are they *supposed* to think peer review is? > >What would shock me is a finding that revealed that most students truly >think that peer review is usually an effective and helpful use of time. > >(I often think that one could spend an entire semester working on >nothing other than helping students learn to be good readers of each >other's work -- and that by the end, you'd actually have taught them a >great deal about writing. But that, of course, is not how Tradition has >handed peer review down to most of us.) > >Well, anyway. I wonder how many instructors really do kid themselves >about what students think of these courses? Is it mere cynicism that >suspects, "Most students think FYC is little more than a hoop"? Hell, I >know for many of us the entire *starting point* of FYC design is the >presumption that it can very easily be a meaningless experience for >students: how can we make a course that students will recognize is not a >waste of their time? I think many, if not most, students truly believe, >in coming into (particularly second semester) writing courses, that >there is nothing else to learn, that it is only more repetition because >"practice makes perfect" (writing, of course, being a perfectible sort >of thing) and they're "a little rusty." Turning such expectations into >meaningful experiences goes right back to the question of what can be >generalized from the course. How many students understand that writing, >like soccer, bobsledding, piano-playing, and sex, is not in the category >of "Things that Can Be Perfected"? If we aren't thinking in terms of >the distance between what our students currently believe about the >nature of successful writing and writers and what more experienced >writers tend to do and think, I'm afraid we're mostly tilting at >windmills. > >Cheers -- >Doug > > > > > > >Dr. Doug Downs >Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric >Writing Program Coordinator >Dept. of English and Literature >Utah Valley State College >800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 >LA 126g >801-863-8572 > >>>> "Kathy Fitch" 9/19/2007 8:11 PM >>> > ><< recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including >them in >the full reports.>> > >Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." > I >think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the >real >teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even >when we >are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize >them. >Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all >about >those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing >here* >like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, >and so >I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc >and >Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling >them >about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers >are >probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue >at all >about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" >should >of course entail. So.) > >In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher >that >writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, >I'd >often rather write for a course in which I could determine the >assignment, >record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to >get a >question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done >than >write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops >(ick!), >group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my >enthusiasm for >the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper >off >the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, >when >they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark >that >they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful >thing, >so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to >say >about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays >out in >the writing classroom. > > >Kathy > > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:52:56 -0600 >From: "Doug Downs" >To: >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >By the way, Elizabeth's preliminary sense of things is consistent with >other research, such as the study Susan Miller did with four students >(sorry I don't have a cite for this) some time ago. Her students, too, >reported rarely encountering writing projects in non-writing classes >that forced them to take writing as seriously as they had in their >writing classes. > >Well, what the heck. No class forced me to take astronomy quite as >seriously as my astronomy class did. Are we surprised? (Rich Haswell >and others have done research suggesting that students write differently >for other teachers than for English teachers because of the perception >that other teachers will grade their content but not their writing. >'Cause those are separate, of course.) > >Of course, the existence of the astronomy course was not predicated on >the assumption that I would need to be prepared to do astronomy because >every other course in the university would require me to have high >astronomy "skills." It is the assumption that writing can be taught out >of context -- of generalizability -- that puts FYC -- and us -- in such >a precarious position. Back again to why it's so important to think in >terms of what is generalizable and teach for it. > >Cheers -- >Doug > > >Dr. Doug Downs >Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric >Writing Program Coordinator >Dept. of English and Literature >Utah Valley State College >800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 >LA 126g >801-863-8572 > >>>> 9/20/2007 6:55 AM >>> >I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some >very >good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar >and >are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students >in >my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage >them, >teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are >excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested >to >know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it >usually >is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of >interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher >without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. > >I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions >that >don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know >what >happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they >don't, >and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of >interview. > >It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my >analytical >lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or >teacher >B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and >which >don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" >very >good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a >systemic >issue, not a teacher issue. > >Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took >a >report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a >local >non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to >work >with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing >that >and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had >a >friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him >materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for >the >client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me >multiple >what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. >He >just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; >it >was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what >he >did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview >on >the activities and the system and the way the student understands >those >rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other >teachers. > >Elizabeth > >Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >Assistant Professor >Director of Writing Programs >Internship Coordinator >Department of English >Humanities 277 >University of Dayton >Dayton, Ohio >937-229-3003 >ewardle@udayton.edu > >-----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > >To: >From: "Kathy Fitch" >Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? > > ><< recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including >them in >the full reports.>> > >Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." > I >think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the >real >teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even >when >we >are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize >them. >Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all >about >those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing >here* >like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, >and so >I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc >and >Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling >them >about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers >are >probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue >at >all >about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" >should >of course entail. So.) > >In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English >teacher >that >writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, >I'd >often rather write for a course in which I could determine the >assignment, >record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to >get >a >question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done >than >write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops >(ick!), >group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my >enthusiasm >for >the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper >off >the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, >when >they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark >that >they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful >thing, >so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to >say >about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays >out >in >the writing classroom. > > >Kathy > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and >update >your information. > > >_______________________________________________ ---- Message was truncated ---- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 18:10:03 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:10:03 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070920164359.3ED121C8029@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C7FB7F.2D94E6E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes-that's just exactly it, Elizabeth. It's fascinating stuff, but it necessarily brings all sorts of cautions and reservations to the forefront, if only because this really *is* often quite intensely private stuff, and then to complicate it further, it inherently entails private reflections about courses not our own. It wouldn't surprise me to learn, just to give one example, that many of our most successful students, as defined by GPA, actually do a whole lot of dissembling, and often do not at all enjoy or appreciate the very classes in which teachers might hold them up as exemplars of everything going right. Then, too, much of their private learning lives-much, probably, of what's best about those-unfolds in spaces perhaps glancingly touched by but finally (and, it could be, necessarily) beyond the realm of school. Transfer as historically understood is just in so many ways exactly the wrong question, isn't it? And now, as I watch my own 13 year old figuring out what kind of learner he is, and examining all of the ways in which that does and (mostly) doesn't jibe with what kind of student school typically values, I realize all over again that even the students we know most intimately are ultimately impenetrable on this score. Much of his private learning-great oceans of it-should be private, and would remain so even if I had the disrespect or temerity to try to breach it. So, now you've helped me do a much better job of edging up on what I wanted to say at first, but only succeeded in kind of flailing toward. All of us draw these circles differently: the public, the personal, the private but shareable, the private but not shareable, the so private that it's inarticulate. You're brave to brave those. And, as you say, the students are courageous to let you. Kathy _____ From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:01 AM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >From Kathy's last post, I love this: "I doubt we know much at all about the private learning lives of students." That's how I've felt these four years listening to the students talk to me. I am so completely out of touch with their private learning lives. Even with four years of texts and transcipts and an increasing willingness on their part to tell me sordid details, I still can't really fathom what goes on in students' private learning lives. As a researcher I am trying very, very hard to just listen, not judge, so that the students are willing to talk openly. As a teacher, I am, of course, horrified by what Matt did. As a researcher I am thinking, "I am so happy he was willing to share that with me. How do I understand it? What do I do with it?" And I still don't know. As I said before, the research on transfer has to be about so much more than cogntive skills--it's about personal identity, resistance, genre awareness, rhetorical awareness, time, and on and on. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C7FB7F.2D94E6E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes—that’s just exactly = it, Elizabeth.  It’s fascinating stuff, but it necessarily brings = all sorts of cautions and reservations to the forefront, if only because = this really *is* often quite = intensely private stuff, and then to complicate it further, it inherently entails = private reflections about courses not our own.  It wouldn’t surprise = me to learn, just to give one example, that many of our most successful = students, as defined by GPA, actually do a whole lot of dissembling, and often do not = at all enjoy or appreciate the very classes in which teachers might hold them = up as exemplars of everything going right.  Then, too, much of their private = learning lives—much, probably, of what’s best about = those—unfolds in spaces perhaps glancingly touched by but finally (and, it could be, necessarily) beyond the realm of school.  Transfer as historically understood is just in so many ways exactly the wrong question, = isn’t it?  And now, as I watch my own 13 year old figuring out what kind = of learner he is, and examining all of the ways in which that does and = (mostly) doesn’t jibe with what kind of student school typically values, I = realize all over again that even the students we know most intimately are = ultimately impenetrable on this score.  Much of his private = learning—great oceans of it—should be private, and would remain so even if I had the = disrespect or temerity to try to breach it.   So, now you’ve helped = me do a much better job of edging up on what I wanted to say at first, but = only succeeded in kind of flailing toward.  All of us draw these circles differently:  the public, the personal, the private but shareable, = the private but not shareable, the so private that it’s = inarticulate.  You’re brave to brave those.  And, as you say, the students = are courageous to let you. 

 

Kathy

 

From: = teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu
Sent: Thursday, September = 20, 2007 10:01 AM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: RE: = [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer?

 


From Kathy's last post, I love = this:

"I doubt we know much at all about the private learning lives of = students."

That's how I've felt these four years listening to the students talk to me. I am so completely out of touch with their private learning lives. Even with = four years of texts and transcipts and an increasing willingness on their part to = tell me sordid details, I still can't really fathom what goes on in students' = private learning lives. As a researcher I am trying very, very hard to just = listen, not judge, so that the students are willing to talk openly. As a teacher, I = am, of course, horrified by what Matt did. As a researcher I am thinking, = "I am so happy he was willing to share that with me. How do I understand it? = What do I do with it?" And I still don't know. As I said before, the = research on transfer has to be about so much more than cogntive skills--it's about = personal identity, resistance, genre awareness, rhetorical awareness, time, and = on and on.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu

------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C7FB7F.2D94E6E0-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Thu Sep 20 20:23:17 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:23:17 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <46F231BC.3821.001A.0@uvsc.edu> Message-ID: <20070920192134.3F80D75809A@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Mostly, I think teachers simply don't have access to those perceptions, and that's where we could all be more realistic (and, as we've been examining, very careful about students and about each other). -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Doug Downs Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:40 AM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Yeah, I think that's what we're both getting at. It's an example of the many ways lots of instructors really don't think too unrealistically about their students' perceptions of writing courses. Cheers -- Doug Dr. Doug Downs Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric Writing Program Coordinator Dept. of English and Literature Utah Valley State College 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 LA 126g 801-863-8572 >>> "Kathy Fitch" 9/20/2007 8:08 AM >>> Uh--okay. Meanwhile, I see teachers on lists ask about it all the time, wondering if they're doing something wrong. I, for one, would love to see such wide discussion of alternate approaches that this sense of something being both an expected feature of the course *and* not really working wouldn't be so pervasive. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com [mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of Doug Downs Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:42 AM To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? I would have thought that negative reports of English writing courses and activities such as "peer review" (neither word in that term is accurate, but old habits die hard) would precisely be what is *not* news about student perceptions of writing courses. _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 21 04:33:47 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:33:47 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: <20070920164359.3ED121C8029@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: <20070921033202.1D1BD758064@smtpauth00.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C7FBD6.50144FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit So, I have a totally personal story to share about how impenetrable the ways of another learner can be even to those of us who rather fancy ourselves pretty good at appreciating learning differences, and respecting them. Mr. 13 had some memorizing to do this week. Nothing really huge (to *me*), just a one page grid laying out the various elective offices, how many are elected to each type, how long the terms, what the terms limits are (if any), how they are selected, what the requirements for citizenship, age and residency are, etc. So, I look at that grid, and immediately start thinking about how the teacher laid it out, why he laid it out that way, and what the layout suggests about how he intends to approach the upcoming quiz that will cover the info. Each column of data, for instance, has an accompanying "why" column, so he's clearly wanting the students to know not only that there are 9 Supreme court justices, but why that number is significant, and so forth. Also, my tendency toward devising mnemonics kicks in right off, so without even really meaning to, I'm making little patterns out of the numbers that are in play on the grid. (Like, if I can remember that 7 plus 2 is nine, and 7 times 2 is 14, I'll have the residency requirements down with no worries: 7, 9, 14, done.) Mr. 13 takes one look at the sheet, sees "stuff to memorize" and gets frustrated beyond belief. He doesn't learn that way. He learns like this: glance at the sheet, absorb it in a gulp, leave it alone, glance at it maybe once or twice more before the quiz, and leave it at that. Memorizing things the way I do that when I have to (and I did have to in school, often, which is how I ended up developing these ways of looking at stuff to memorize) makes him nuts. Memorizing this grid the way his teacher suggested (something involving triangles as the mnemonic) also makes him nuts. Indeed, the very thought of memorizing anything makes him nuts. Conversely, he has committed all sorts of minutiae to memory, and apparently has something approaching the fabled photographic memory. So, it's not remembering that's the problem, apparently, but *having* to remember, and to do that in a fashion imposed by someone else. He likes choosing what to photograph with that memory, and how. I look at the sheet, figure out the someone else's way, and just cope with that. He looks at the sheet, sees "someone else's way" and balks, big time-almost to the point of panic, really. We talked about it, some, and even though I think I kind of get where he's coming from in a really rudimentary way, and utterly sympathize with it, it's clear that I don't fully grasp it, and that he can't really make me see or experience that sheet with its grid of info in precisely the same way he does. Finally, he explained that if junior high had more than a three minute passing period between courses, he'd easily get by with all As without ever once looking at school materials outside of the building, and I believe that's true just based on years of observation about how he ticks. His way-just kind of put the sheet in front of him and look at it while who knows what all mysterious processes are unfolding in his brain, and possibly while simultaneously devouring a novel, IMing or texting friends, and listening to his iPod-would require, he figures, about twenty minutes of down time before each class. Hah! And why not! For him, that would be the ideal school day. Nobody taught me the kinds of memory strategies I use, though I know they are common. Where *do* those come from? How annoying must it be to be a person who simply builds an entirely different sort of structure to store and retrieve these things with? How threatening when they don't seem to grasp that you do have a way, but it's very different? Gosh, it's easy to forget how deeply frightening school can be for students, and how much of the learning they do that is unschooled (and, so, highly motivated) turns out to be totally at odds with the ways of school. (But the very young, pretty, and pleasant Algebra teacher he loves. If she said, "know this grid and know it like this," he do it, just to see her beam approval at him. And if the sharp and funny Language Arts teacher asked, he might do it to hear her laugh, but part of the reason he loves that one is that she's much more likely to ask him to make a thing than to memorize one, and the making is the memorizing, for him. Motivation comes in many flavors. Some less mysterious than others.) Kathy ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C7FBD6.50144FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So, I have a totally personal story to share about = how impenetrable the ways of another learner can be even to those of us who = rather fancy ourselves pretty good at appreciating learning differences, and respecting them.  Mr. 13 had some memorizing to do this week.  Nothing really huge (to *me*), just a one page grid laying out the various elective offices, how many = are elected to each type, how long the terms, what the terms limits are (if = any), how they are selected, what the requirements for citizenship, age and = residency are, etc.  So, I look at that grid, and immediately start thinking = about how the teacher laid it out, why he laid it out that way, and what the = layout suggests about how he intends to approach the upcoming quiz that will = cover the info.  Each column of data, for instance, has an accompanying = “why” column, so he’s clearly wanting the students to know not only that = there are 9 Supreme court justices, but why that number is significant, and so forth.  Also, my tendency toward devising mnemonics kicks in right = off, so without even really meaning to, I’m making little patterns out of = the numbers that are in play on the grid.  (Like, if I can remember = that 7 plus 2 is nine, and 7 times 2 is 14, I’ll have the residency = requirements down with no worries: 7, 9, 14, done.)  Mr. 13 takes one look at = the sheet, sees “stuff to memorize” and gets frustrated beyond belief.  He doesn’t learn that way.  He learns like = this:  glance at the sheet, absorb it in a gulp, leave it alone, glance at it = maybe once or twice more before the quiz, and leave it at that.  = Memorizing things the way I do that when I have to (and I did have to in school, = often, which is how I ended up developing these ways of looking at stuff to = memorize) makes him nuts.  Memorizing this grid  the way his teacher = suggested (something involving triangles as the mnemonic) also makes him = nuts.   Indeed, the very thought of memorizing anything makes him nuts.  =  Conversely, he has committed all sorts of minutiae to memory, and apparently has = something approaching the fabled photographic memory.  So, it’s not remembering that’s the problem, apparently, but *having* to remember, and to do = that in a fashion imposed by someone else.  He likes choosing what to = photograph with that memory, and how.  I look at the sheet, figure out the = someone else’s way, and just cope with that.  He looks at the sheet, = sees “someone else’s way” and balks, big time—almost to the point of = panic, really.  We talked about it, some, and even though I think I kind = of get where he’s coming from in a really rudimentary way, and utterly sympathize with it, it’s clear that I don’t fully grasp it, = and that he can’t really make me see or experience that sheet with its grid = of info in precisely the same way he does.  Finally, he explained that = if junior high had more than a three minute passing period between courses, = he’d easily get by with all As without ever once looking at school materials = outside of the building, and I believe that’s true just based on years of observation about how he ticks.  His way—just kind of put the = sheet in front of him and look at it while who knows what all mysterious = processes are unfolding in his brain, and possibly while simultaneously devouring = a novel, IMing or texting friends, and listening to his iPod—would = require, he figures, about twenty minutes of down time before each class.  Hah!  And why not!  For him, that would be the ideal school day.  Nobody taught me the kinds of memory strategies I use, though = I know they are common.  Where *do* those come from?  How annoying must it be to be a person who simply = builds an entirely different sort of structure to store and retrieve these = things with?  How threatening when they don’t seem to grasp that you = do have a way, but it’s very different?  Gosh, it’s easy = to forget how deeply frightening school can be for students, and how much = of the learning they do that is unschooled (and, so, highly motivated) turns = out to be totally at odds with the ways of school.

 

(But the very young, pretty, and pleasant Algebra = teacher he loves.  If she said, “know this grid and know it like = this,” he do it, just to see her beam approval at him.  And if the sharp = and funny Language Arts teacher asked, he might do it to hear her laugh, but = part of the reason he loves that one is that she’s much more likely to = ask him to make a thing than to memorize one, and the making is the memorizing, = for him.  Motivation comes in many flavors. Some less mysterious than = others.)

 

Kathy

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C7FBD6.50144FB0-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 21 11:08:12 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:08:12 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3273221971_200494 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Funny enough, what has made me feel so out of touch with the private learning lives of students has been having a stepson who attempted college, and overhearing him/watching him interact with college friends, assignments= , requirements... It was a complete eye-opener. The research definitely needs to take into account multiple aspects, as Elizabeth suggests. From what I=B9ve seen of European research, though, any one research project doesn=B9t necessarily explore every angle, just as no on= e researcher finds all the =B3answers.=B2 The body of research from a variety of perspectives is in ongoing conversation. This is one of the things I feel composition theory as a field has been missing, and it is part of why I=B9m s= o excited by Elizabeth=B9s work and other current projects. Tiane On 9/20/07 5:01 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" wrote: >=20 > From Kathy's last post, I love this: >=20 > "I doubt we know much at all about the private learning lives of students= ." >=20 > That's how I've felt these four years listening to the students talk to m= e. I > am so completely out of touch with their private learning lives. Even wit= h > four years of texts and transcipts and an increasing willingness on their= part > to tell me sordid details, I still can't really fathom what goes on in > students' private learning lives. As a researcher I am trying very, very = hard > to just listen, not judge, so that the students are willing to talk openl= y. As > a teacher, I am, of course, horrified by what Matt did. As a researcher I= am > thinking, "I am so happy he was willing to share that with me. How do I > understand it? What do I do with it?" And I still don't know. As I said > before, the research on transfer has to be about so much more than cognti= ve > skills--it's about personal identity, resistance, genre awareness, rhetor= ical > awareness, time, and on and on. >=20 > Elizabeth=20 >=20 > Elizabeth Wardle, PhD > Assistant Professor > Director of Writing Programs > Internship Coordinator > Department of English > Humanities 277 > University of Dayton > Dayton, Ohio > 937-229-3003 > ewardle@udayton.edu --B_3273221971_200494 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Funny= enough, what has made me feel so out of touch with the private learning liv= es of students has been having a stepson who attempted college, and overhear= ing him/watching him interact with college friends, assignments, requirement= s... It was a complete eye-opener.

The research definitely needs to take into account multiple aspects, as Eli= zabeth suggests. From what I’ve seen of European research, though, any= one research project doesn’t necessarily explore every angle, just as= no one researcher finds all the “answers.” The body of research= from a variety of perspectives is in ongoing conversation. This is one of t= he things I feel composition theory as a field has been missing, and it is p= art of why I’m so excited by Elizabeth’s work and other current = projects.
Tiane




On 9/20/07 5:01 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" <Eliz= abeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu> wrote:


>From Kathy's last post, I love this:

"I doubt we know much at all about the private learni= ng lives of students."

That's how I've felt these four years listening to the stu= dents talk to me. I am so completely out of touch with their private learnin= g lives. Even with four years of texts and transcipts and an increasing will= ingness on their part to tell me sordid details, I still can't really fathom= what goes on in students' private learning lives. As a researcher I am tryi= ng very, very hard to just listen, not judge, so that the students are willi= ng to talk openly. As a teacher, I am, of course, horrified by what Matt did= . As a researcher I am thinking, "I am so happy he was willing to share= that with me. How do I understand it? What do I do with it?" And I sti= ll don't know. As I said before, the research on transfer has to be about so= much more than cogntive skills--it's about personal identity, resistance, g= enre awareness, rhetorical awareness, time, and on and on.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu

 --B_3273221971_200494-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 21 15:39:36 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Richard Haswell) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:39:36 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer? In-Reply-To: <20070920125755.DKR51427@mail.longwood.edu> Message-ID: Heather, I don't think there is one approved way to start research in an area. Here's some possible starts, all of which at one time or another I have tried successfully (more or less). (1) Figure out what you really don't know but really want to know, and then ask what is the most direct way to find out the answer (2) Hook up with a researcher or research team and talk them into tackling your problem, with you as co-researcher--a fast way to learn ways of research you can take up and modify on your own later (3) Read recent research studies in the area and find one whose method can be applied to your situation, or changed to fit (4) Identify a couple of current students who seem to contrast in terms of your research interest and start collecting data: writings, interviews, think-aloud protocols, keystroke information, whatever seems promising. This is not a formal study, at most a pilot study. You'll need to get IRB approval and follow research protocols with the students (release forms, etc.), but you don't have to worry about whether the study "will turn out." You'll be discovering the most profitable approaches as you go, food for a more ambitious, formal, maybe replicable, maybe funded study to follow. And what the hell--if the results turn out interesting, just call it "grounded research" and you can probably get it published. (5) Don't get hung up thinking about the "definitive study." As Tiane says, "any one research project doesnt necessarily explore every angle, just as no one researcher finds all the 'answers.' Focus and then explore in depth (6) Do you teach graduate seminars or work with graduate students? Forming a team, talking out the problems, developing hypotheses, dividing up the labor of collecting the analyzing the results, even co-authoring a report--all can be very energizing and instructional for everyone. (7) Finally, don't be afraid of imperfect approaches resulting in half answers. All research, even the most impressively funded, ends up that way. Would that we hear more people asking your question! Rich On 9/20/07 11:57 AM, "Heather Lettner-Rust" wrote: > My institution has a senior level gen ed citizenship writing seminar (I did a > Module for this listserv last Dec-Jan 07). I have seen very interesting > issues with students "unable" or "unwilling" to generalize and I am beginning > to study why. > > My question is this: How can I begin to study the issue of > transfer/generalization in this course? Is there a way to narrow my > collection of data, design of study to a manageable size and still make a > contribution to my learning, my colleagues' learning at the institution and > beyond? From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 21 15:56:03 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Richard Haswell) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:56:03 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3273213370_753141 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable For CompPile I=B9ve just been reviewing and uploading a bunch of recent scholarship from Europe (Amsterdam UP, Elsevier, John Benjamins, Gruyter, etc.) and I can attest to Tiane=B9s obvservation. Over and over you find pieces that qualify their study with a particular theory or approach: Joanna Wood, =B3Text in context: A critical discourse analysis approach to Margaret Paston=B2 Salvador Pons Borderia, =B3A functional approach to the study of discourse markers=B2 Daniel Perrin, =B3Progression analysis: An ethnographic, computer-based, multi-method approach to investigate natural writing processes=B2 Ler Soon Lay Vivien, =B3A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particles in Singapore English=B2 Gert Rijlaarsdam and Huub van den Bergh, =B3Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach=B2 Elizabeth Quintero, =B3A problem-posing approach to using native language writing in English literacy instruction=B2 And so on. Not that awareness of =B3angle=B2 hasn=B9t been part of USA language research for decades. But European researchers seem more open and at ease with the reality. Rich Haswell On 9/21/07 5:08 AM, "Christiane Donahue" wrote: > From what I=B9ve seen of European research, though, any one research projec= t > doesn=B9t necessarily explore every angle, just as no one researcher finds = all > the =B3answers.=B2 The body of research from a variety of perspectives is in > ongoing conversation. --B_3273213370_753141 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? For CompPile I&= #8217;ve just been reviewing and uploading a bunch of recent scholarship fro= m Europe (Amsterdam UP, Elsevier, John Benjamins, Gruyter, etc.) and I can a= ttest to Tiane’s obvservation. Over and over you find pieces that qual= ify their study with a particular theory or approach:

Joanna Wood, “Text in context: A critical discourse analysis approach= to Margaret Paston”
Salvador Pons Borderia, “A functional approach to the study of discou= rse markers”
Daniel Perrin, “Progression analysis: An ethnographic, computer-based= , multi-method approach to investigate natural writing processes”
Ler Soon Lay Vivien, “A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse par= ticles in Singapore English”
Gert Rijlaarsdam and Huub van den Bergh, “Writing process theory: A f= unctional dynamic approach”
Elizabeth Quintero, “A problem-posing approach to using native langua= ge writing in English literacy instruction”

And so on.

Not that awareness of “angle” hasn’t been part of USA lan= guage research for decades. But European researchers seem more open and at e= ase with the reality.

Rich Haswell


On 9/21/07 5:08 AM, "Christiane Donahue" <tdonahue@maine.edu&g= t; wrote:

From what I’ve seen of European research, though,= any one research project doesn’t necessarily explore every angle, jus= t as no one researcher finds all the “answers.” The body of rese= arch from a variety of perspectives is in ongoing conversation.

 --B_3273213370_753141-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Sat Sep 22 20:55:43 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:55:43 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is a very helpful list, Rich, thank you so much. And Heather, numbers (2) and (3) were initially very fruitful paths for me in my research. Tiane On 9/21/07 4:39 PM, "Richard Haswell" wrote: > Heather, > > I don't think there is one approved way to start research in an area. Here's > some possible starts, all of which at one time or another I have tried > successfully (more or less). > > (1) Figure out what you really don't know but really want to know, and then > ask what is the most direct way to find out the answer > (2) Hook up with a researcher or research team and talk them into tackling > your problem, with you as co-researcher--a fast way to learn ways of > research you can take up and modify on your own later > (3) Read recent research studies in the area and find one whose method can > be applied to your situation, or changed to fit > (4) Identify a couple of current students who seem to contrast in terms of > your research interest and start collecting data: writings, interviews, > think-aloud protocols, keystroke information, whatever seems promising. This > is not a formal study, at most a pilot study. You'll need to get IRB > approval and follow research protocols with the students (release forms, > etc.), but you don't have to worry about whether the study "will turn out." > You'll be discovering the most profitable approaches as you go, food for a > more ambitious, formal, maybe replicable, maybe funded study to follow. And > what the hell--if the results turn out interesting, just call it "grounded > research" and you can probably get it published. > (5) Don't get hung up thinking about the "definitive study." As Tiane says, > "any one research project doesnt necessarily explore every angle, just as > no one researcher finds all the 'answers.' Focus and then explore in depth > (6) Do you teach graduate seminars or work with graduate students? Forming a > team, talking out the problems, developing hypotheses, dividing up the labor > of collecting the analyzing the results, even co-authoring a report--all can > be very energizing and instructional for everyone. > (7) Finally, don't be afraid of imperfect approaches resulting in half > answers. All research, even the most impressively funded, ends up that way. > > Would that we hear more people asking your question! > > Rich > > > On 9/20/07 11:57 AM, "Heather Lettner-Rust" > wrote: > >> My institution has a senior level gen ed citizenship writing seminar (I did a >> Module for this listserv last Dec-Jan 07). I have seen very interesting >> issues with students "unable" or "unwilling" to generalize and I am beginning >> to study why. >> >> My question is this: How can I begin to study the issue of >> transfer/generalization in this course? Is there a way to narrow my >> collection of data, design of study to a manageable size and still make a >> contribution to my learning, my colleagues' learning at the institution and >> beyond? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Sat Sep 22 20:57:55 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:57:55 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3273343415_41026 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Right=8Bit=B9s really helpful to know how any one study might fit a larger pattern, and really helpful to realize studies in the aggregate bring more whole understandings. I know that sounds like common sense, but it=B9s easy t= o forget. Thanks again, Rich. Tiane On 9/21/07 4:56 PM, "Richard Haswell" wrote: > For CompPile I=B9ve just been reviewing and uploading a bunch of recent > scholarship from Europe (Amsterdam UP, Elsevier, John Benjamins, Gruyter, > etc.) and I can attest to Tiane=B9s obvservation. Over and over you find pi= eces > that qualify their study with a particular theory or approach: >=20 > Joanna Wood, =B3Text in context: A critical discourse analysis approach to > Margaret Paston=B2 > Salvador Pons Borderia, =B3A functional approach to the study of discourse > markers=B2 > Daniel Perrin, =B3Progression analysis: An ethnographic, computer-based, > multi-method approach to investigate natural writing processes=B2 > Ler Soon Lay Vivien, =B3A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particl= es in > Singapore English=B2 > Gert Rijlaarsdam and Huub van den Bergh, =B3Writing process theory: A funct= ional > dynamic approach=B2 > Elizabeth Quintero, =B3A problem-posing approach to using native language > writing in English literacy instruction=B2 >=20 > And so on. >=20 > Not that awareness of =B3angle=B2 hasn=B9t been part of USA language research f= or > decades. But European researchers seem more open and at ease with the rea= lity. >=20 > Rich Haswell >=20 >=20 > On 9/21/07 5:08 AM, "Christiane Donahue" wrote: >=20 >> From what I=B9ve seen of European research, though, any one research proje= ct >> doesn=B9t necessarily explore every angle, just as no one researcher finds= all >> the =B3answers.=B2 The body of research from a variety of perspectives is in >> ongoing conversation. >=20 >=20 --B_3273343415_41026 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? Right= —it’s really helpful to know how any one study might fit a large= r pattern, and really helpful to realize studies in the aggregate bring more= whole understandings. I know that sounds like common sense, but it’s = easy to forget.
Thanks again, Rich.
Tiane


On 9/21/07 4:56 PM, "Richard Haswell" <rhaswell@grandecom.net&= gt; wrote:

For CompPile I’ve just been reviewing and uploading a bunch= of recent scholarship from Europe (Amsterdam UP, Elsevier, John Benjamins, = Gruyter, etc.) and I can attest to Tiane’s obvservation. Over and over= you find pieces that qualify their study with a particular theory or approa= ch:

Joanna Wood, “Text in context: A critical discourse analysis approach= to Margaret Paston”
Salvador Pons Borderia, “A functional approach to the study of discou= rse markers”
Daniel Perrin, “Progression analysis: An ethnographic, computer-based= , multi-method approach to investigate natural writing processes”
Ler Soon Lay Vivien, “A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse par= ticles in Singapore English”
Gert Rijlaarsdam and Huub van den Bergh, “Writing process theory: A f= unctional dynamic approach”
Elizabeth Quintero, “A problem-posing approach to using native langua= ge writing in English literacy instruction”

And so on.

Not that awareness of “angle” hasn’t been part of USA lan= guage research for decades. But European researchers seem more open and at e= ase with the reality.

Rich Haswell


On 9/21/07 5:08 AM, "Christiane Donahue" <tdonahue@maine.edu&g= t; wrote:

From what I’ve seen of European research, though,= any one research project doesn’t necessarily explore every angle, jus= t as no one researcher finds all the “answers.” The body of rese= arch from a variety of perspectives is in ongoing conversation.



 --B_3273343415_41026-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Sun Sep 23 15:17:23 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:17:23 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer? Message-ID: Hi Heather, I sent you an email response before but apparently it got lost in the mail. I'm sorry about that. But anything Rich Haswell says will be a better response anyway. :) I just want to suggest that if you want, you might post your ideas on your study to this list. It would be an interesting exercise for people to consider designing a local study about transfer intended to provide feedback for program or courses. As Rich and Tiane both say, there is no perfect study. There's just a study that is carefully designed to try to get at your questions, and which can build on and add to other people's studies. If you are willing to post on your thinking, here are some questions you might tackle: 1) What is my understanding of transfer? (The Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom book we cited on the TC module provides various overviews) 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? If you posted your initial thoughts on these, we could have a really interesting discussion, I think. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com From: Heather Lettner-Rust Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/20/2007 12:57PM Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer? I've been following this discussion closely because it's a topic I beleive applies to a course I teach. My institution has a senior level gen ed citizenship writing seminar (I did a Module for this listserv last Dec-Jan 07). I have seen very interesting issues with students "unable" or "unwilling" to generalize and I am beginning to study why. My question is this: How can I begin to study the issue of transfer/generalization in this course? Is there a way to narrow my collection of data, design of study to a manageable size and still make a contribution to my learning, my colleagues' learning at the institution and beyond? Heather Heather Lettner-Rust English & Modern Languages Dept. Longwood University 201 High Street Farmville, VA 23909 office: 204 Barlow phone: 434.395.2178 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:32:01 -0400 (EDT) >From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1262 - 7 msgs >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to > teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com > >You can reach the person managing the list at > teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Transfer occurs when needed or wanted (Charles Nelson) > 2. RE: Why study transfer? (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) > 3. RE: Why study transfer? (Doug Downs) > 4. RE: Why study transfer? (Doug Downs) > 5. RE: Why study transfer? (Kathy Fitch) > 6. Re: Why study transfer? (Christiane Donahue) > 7. RE: Why study transfer? (Kathy Fitch) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >From: Charles Nelson >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:27:49 -0400 >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer occurs when needed or wanted >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Elizabeth wrote: > >> so the traditional individual view of transfer >> doesn't work (they know what to do, they just figure out how not to >> do it >> or when they don't need to do it and the system enables this). It's >> clear >> to me from the language the students use when talking to me (and >> the things >> they do and write when they really *are* challenged) that they know >> a lot >> about writing and can draw on it in useful ways when they want to/ >> really >> have to. > >I've seen the same thing. One of my students "transferred" Toulmin >reasoning to their major of geophysics to make the reading more >interesting. Another fyc student expanded on what she learned about >creating questionnaires for a "practical proposal" paper to help her >brother, a graduate student in pharmacy, to create a questionnaire >that went to thousands of people. The "transfer" goes the other >direction, too. One student who was having trouble organizing his >paper drew up a flow diagram, which he had learned to do in a >computer science course, to aid in the process. And the list goes on. >As Elizabeth said, they do it either when they "really have to" or >"want to." As Elizabeth mentioned in another email, for transfer to >become the norm, the university as a system of activity needs to have >writing become more complex as students move from one course to >another. For that to occur, however, the university system will >likely have to perceive a crisis in which it "really [has] to" >change. Of course, systems are like students, "they know what to do, >they just figure out how not to do it." > >Charles Nelson > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:55:10 -0400 >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some very >good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar and >are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students in >my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage them, >teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are >excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested to >know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it usually >is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of >interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher >without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. > >I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions that >don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know what >happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they don't, >and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of interview. > >It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my analytical >lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or teacher >B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and which >don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" very >good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a systemic >issue, not a teacher issue. > >Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took a >report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a local >non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to work >with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing that >and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had a >friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him >materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for the >client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me multiple >what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. He >just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; it >was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what he >did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview on >the activities and the system and the way the student understands those >rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other teachers. > >Elizabeth > >Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >Assistant Professor >Director of Writing Programs >Internship Coordinator >Department of English >Humanities 277 >University of Dayton >Dayton, Ohio >937-229-3003 >ewardle@udayton.edu > >-----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > >To: >From: "Kathy Fitch" >Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? > > ><< recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them in >the full reports.>> > >Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I >think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real >teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when >we >are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. >Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about >those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* >like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and so >I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc and >Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling them >about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers are >probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at >all >about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should >of course entail. So.) > >In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher >that >writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd >often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, >record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get >a >question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than >write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), >group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm >for >the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off >the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when >they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that >they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, >so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say >about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out >in >the writing classroom. > > >Kathy > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >your information. > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:42:01 -0600 >From: "Doug Downs" >To: >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >I would have thought that negative reports of English writing courses >and activities such as "peer review" (neither word in that term is >accurate, but old habits die hard) would precisely be what is *not* news >about student perceptions of writing courses. > >The first reader response workshop we do every semester, one of my >favorite moments is talking about Peer Review in ways that most of my >students would like to but never quite feel safe doing. They often >(though I'm not sure I'd step up to the word "usually") think Peer >Review as they have usually encountered it is pointless and a waste of >time. They wonder why on earth the most expert reader in the class (the >teacher) would refuse to read their work and instead hand it to the most >non-expert readers in the class for fixing (because they have learned to >understand peer review as fixing, and often feel that they themselves >don't understand what they're doing well enough to offer any advice, and >they don't trust their "peers" any more than themselves). Time after >time after time, "Good Paper, Dude!" from a fellow student stacks up >against "I thought your paper had a number of weaknesses" from the >teacher. How effective are they *supposed* to think peer review is? > >What would shock me is a finding that revealed that most students truly >think that peer review is usually an effective and helpful use of time. > >(I often think that one could spend an entire semester working on >nothing other than helping students learn to be good readers of each >other's work -- and that by the end, you'd actually have taught them a >great deal about writing. But that, of course, is not how Tradition has >handed peer review down to most of us.) > >Well, anyway. I wonder how many instructors really do kid themselves >about what students think of these courses? Is it mere cynicism that >suspects, "Most students think FYC is little more than a hoop"? Hell, I >know for many of us the entire *starting point* of FYC design is the >presumption that it can very easily be a meaningless experience for >students: how can we make a course that students will recognize is not a >waste of their time? I think many, if not most, students truly believe, >in coming into (particularly second semester) writing courses, that >there is nothing else to learn, that it is only more repetition because >"practice makes perfect" (writing, of course, being a perfectible sort >of thing) and they're "a little rusty." Turning such expectations into >meaningful experiences goes right back to the question of what can be >generalized from the course. How many students understand that writing, >like soccer, bobsledding, piano-playing, and sex, is not in the category >of "Things that Can Be Perfected"? If we aren't thinking in terms of >the distance between what our students currently believe about the >nature of successful writing and writers and what more experienced >writers tend to do and think, I'm afraid we're mostly tilting at >windmills. > >Cheers -- >Doug > > > > > > >Dr. Doug Downs >Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric >Writing Program Coordinator >Dept. of English and Literature >Utah Valley State College >800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 >LA 126g >801-863-8572 > >>>> "Kathy Fitch" 9/19/2007 8:11 PM >>> > ><< recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including >them in >the full reports.>> > >Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." > I >think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the >real >teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even >when we >are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize >them. >Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all >about >those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing >here* >like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, >and so >I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc >and >Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling >them >about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers >are >probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue >at all >about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" >should >of course entail. So.) > >In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher >that >writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, >I'd >often rather write for a course in which I could determine the >assignment, >record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to >get a >question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done >than >write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops >(ick!), >group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my >enthusiasm for >the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper >off >the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, >when >they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark >that >they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful >thing, >so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to >say >about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays >out in >the writing classroom. > > >Kathy > > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:52:56 -0600 >From: "Doug Downs" >To: >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >By the way, Elizabeth's preliminary sense of things is consistent with >other research, such as the study Susan Miller did with four students >(sorry I don't have a cite for this) some time ago. Her students, too, >reported rarely encountering writing projects in non-writing classes >that forced them to take writing as seriously as they had in their >writing classes. > >Well, what the heck. No class forced me to take astronomy quite as >seriously as my astronomy class did. Are we surprised? (Rich Haswell >and others have done research suggesting that students write differently >for other teachers than for English teachers because of the perception >that other teachers will grade their content but not their writing. >'Cause those are separate, of course.) > >Of course, the existence of the astronomy course was not predicated on >the assumption that I would need to be prepared to do astronomy because >every other course in the university would require me to have high >astronomy "skills." It is the assumption that writing can be taught out >of context -- of generalizability -- that puts FYC -- and us -- in such >a precarious position. Back again to why it's so important to think in >terms of what is generalizable and teach for it. > >Cheers -- >Doug > > >Dr. Doug Downs >Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric >Writing Program Coordinator >Dept. of English and Literature >Utah Valley State College >800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 >LA 126g >801-863-8572 > >>>> 9/20/2007 6:55 AM >>> >I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some >very >good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar >and >are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students >in >my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage >them, >teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are >excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested >to >know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it >usually >is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of >interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher >without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. > >I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions >that >don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know >what >happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they >don't, >and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of >interview. > >It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my >analytical >lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or >teacher >B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and >which >don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" >very >good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a >systemic >issue, not a teacher issue. > >Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took >a >report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a >local >non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to >work >with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing >that >and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had >a >friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him >materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for >the >client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me >multiple >what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. >He >just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; >it >was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what >he >did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview >on >the activities and the system and the way the student understands >those >rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other >teachers. > >Elizabeth > >Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >Assistant Professor >Director of Writing Programs >Internship Coordinator >Department of English >Humanities 277 >University of Dayton >Dayton, Ohio >937-229-3003 >ewardle@udayton.edu > >-----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > >To: >From: "Kathy Fitch" >Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM >Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? > > ><< recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including >them in >the full reports.>> > >Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." > I >think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the >real >teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even >when >we >are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize >them. >Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all >about >those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing >here* >like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, >and so >I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc >and >Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling >them >about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers >are >probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue >at >all >about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" >should >of course entail. So.) > >In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English >teacher >that >writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, >I'd >often rather write for a course in which I could determine the >assignment, >record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to >get >a >question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done >than >write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops >(ick!), >group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my >enthusiasm >for >the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper >off >the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, >when >they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark >that >they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful >thing, >so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to >say >about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays >out >in >the writing classroom. > > >Kathy > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and >update >your information. > > >_______________________________________________ ---- Message was truncated ---- _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Sun Sep 23 16:26:35 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:26:35 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That would indeed be a wonderful discussion. If you aren't certain on the "methods" part, others in the discussion can offer ideas. Tiane On 9/23/07 4:17 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" wrote: > Hi Heather, > I sent you an email response before but apparently it got lost in the mail. > I'm sorry about that. But anything Rich Haswell says will be a better > response anyway. :) I just want to suggest that if you want, you might post > your ideas on your study to this list. It would be an interesting exercise > for people to consider designing a local study about transfer intended to > provide feedback for program or courses. As Rich and Tiane both say, there > is no perfect study. There's just a study that is carefully designed to try > to get at your questions, and which can build on and add to other people's > studies. > > If you are willing to post on your thinking, here are some questions you > might tackle: > 1) What is my understanding of transfer? (The Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom > book we cited on the TC module provides various overviews) > 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? > 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? > > If you posted your initial thoughts on these, we could have a really > interesting discussion, I think. > > Elizabeth > > Elizabeth Wardle, PhD > Assistant Professor > Director of Writing Programs > Internship Coordinator > Department of English > Humanities 277 > University of Dayton > Dayton, Ohio > 937-229-3003 > ewardle@udayton.edu > > -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > From: Heather Lettner-Rust > Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > Date: 09/20/2007 12:57PM > Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer? > > I've been following this discussion closely because it's a topic I beleive > applies to a course I teach. > > My institution has a senior level gen ed citizenship writing seminar (I did > a Module for this listserv last Dec-Jan 07). I have seen very interesting > issues with students "unable" or "unwilling" to generalize and I am > beginning to study why. > > My question is this: How can I begin to study the issue of > transfer/generalization in this course? Is there a way to narrow my > collection of data, design of study to a manageable size and still make a > contribution to my learning, my colleagues' learning at the institution and > beyond? > > Heather > > Heather Lettner-Rust > English & Modern Languages Dept. > Longwood University > 201 High Street > Farmville, VA 23909 > > office: 204 Barlow > phone: 434.395.2178 > > > > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:32:01 -0400 (EDT) >> From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1262 - 7 msgs >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to >> teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Transfer occurs when needed or wanted (Charles Nelson) >> 2. RE: Why study transfer? (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) >> 3. RE: Why study transfer? (Doug Downs) >> 4. RE: Why study transfer? (Doug Downs) >> 5. RE: Why study transfer? (Kathy Fitch) >> 6. Re: Why study transfer? (Christiane Donahue) >> 7. RE: Why study transfer? (Kathy Fitch) >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 1 >> From: Charles Nelson >> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:27:49 -0400 >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Transfer occurs when needed or wanted >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Elizabeth wrote: >> >>> so the traditional individual view of transfer >>> doesn't work (they know what to do, they just figure out how not to >>> do it >>> or when they don't need to do it and the system enables this). It's >>> clear >>> to me from the language the students use when talking to me (and >>> the things >>> they do and write when they really *are* challenged) that they know >>> a lot >>> about writing and can draw on it in useful ways when they want to/ >>> really >>> have to. >> >> I've seen the same thing. One of my students "transferred" Toulmin >> reasoning to their major of geophysics to make the reading more >> interesting. Another fyc student expanded on what she learned about >> creating questionnaires for a "practical proposal" paper to help her >> brother, a graduate student in pharmacy, to create a questionnaire >> that went to thousands of people. The "transfer" goes the other >> direction, too. One student who was having trouble organizing his >> paper drew up a flow diagram, which he had learned to do in a >> computer science course, to aid in the process. And the list goes on. >> As Elizabeth said, they do it either when they "really have to" or >> "want to." As Elizabeth mentioned in another email, for transfer to >> become the norm, the university as a system of activity needs to have >> writing become more complex as students move from one course to >> another. For that to occur, however, the university system will >> likely have to perceive a crisis in which it "really [has] to" >> change. Of course, systems are like students, "they know what to do, >> they just figure out how not to do it." >> >> Charles Nelson >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 2 >> Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >> From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:55:10 -0400 >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some very >> good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar > and >> are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students in >> my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage them, >> teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are >> excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested to >> know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it > usually >> is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of >> interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher >> without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. >> >> I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions that >> don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know what >> happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they don't, >> and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of interview. >> >> It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my > analytical >> lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or > teacher >> B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and which >> don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" very >> good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a systemic >> issue, not a teacher issue. >> >> Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took a >> report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a local >> non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to work >> with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing > that >> and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had a >> friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him >> materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for the >> client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me multiple >> what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. He >> just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; it >> was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what he >> did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview on >> the activities and the system and the way the student understands those >> rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other teachers. >> >> Elizabeth >> >> Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Director of Writing Programs >> Internship Coordinator >> Department of English >> Humanities 277 >> University of Dayton >> Dayton, Ohio >> 937-229-3003 >> ewardle@udayton.edu >> >> -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- >> >> To: >> From: "Kathy Fitch" >> Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM >> Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >> >> >> << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including them > in >> the full reports.>> >> >> Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." I >> think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >> blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the real >> teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even when >> we >> are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize them. >> Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all about >> those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing here* >> like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, and > so >> I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc > and >> Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling > them >> about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers > are >> probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue at >> all >> about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" should >> of course entail. So.) >> >> In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher >> that >> writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >> courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, I'd >> often rather write for a course in which I could determine the assignment, >> record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to get >> a >> question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done than >> write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops (ick!), >> group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my enthusiasm >> for >> the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper off >> the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >> occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, when >> they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark that >> they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful thing, >> so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to say >> about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays out >> in >> the writing classroom. >> >> >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >> your information. >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:42:01 -0600 >> From: "Doug Downs" >> To: >> Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> I would have thought that negative reports of English writing courses >> and activities such as "peer review" (neither word in that term is >> accurate, but old habits die hard) would precisely be what is *not* news >> about student perceptions of writing courses. >> >> The first reader response workshop we do every semester, one of my >> favorite moments is talking about Peer Review in ways that most of my >> students would like to but never quite feel safe doing. They often >> (though I'm not sure I'd step up to the word "usually") think Peer >> Review as they have usually encountered it is pointless and a waste of >> time. They wonder why on earth the most expert reader in the class (the >> teacher) would refuse to read their work and instead hand it to the most >> non-expert readers in the class for fixing (because they have learned to >> understand peer review as fixing, and often feel that they themselves >> don't understand what they're doing well enough to offer any advice, and >> they don't trust their "peers" any more than themselves). Time after >> time after time, "Good Paper, Dude!" from a fellow student stacks up >> against "I thought your paper had a number of weaknesses" from the >> teacher. How effective are they *supposed* to think peer review is? >> >> What would shock me is a finding that revealed that most students truly >> think that peer review is usually an effective and helpful use of time. >> >> (I often think that one could spend an entire semester working on >> nothing other than helping students learn to be good readers of each >> other's work -- and that by the end, you'd actually have taught them a >> great deal about writing. But that, of course, is not how Tradition has >> handed peer review down to most of us.) >> >> Well, anyway. I wonder how many instructors really do kid themselves >> about what students think of these courses? Is it mere cynicism that >> suspects, "Most students think FYC is little more than a hoop"? Hell, I >> know for many of us the entire *starting point* of FYC design is the >> presumption that it can very easily be a meaningless experience for >> students: how can we make a course that students will recognize is not a >> waste of their time? I think many, if not most, students truly believe, >> in coming into (particularly second semester) writing courses, that >> there is nothing else to learn, that it is only more repetition because >> "practice makes perfect" (writing, of course, being a perfectible sort >> of thing) and they're "a little rusty." Turning such expectations into >> meaningful experiences goes right back to the question of what can be >> generalized from the course. How many students understand that writing, >> like soccer, bobsledding, piano-playing, and sex, is not in the category >> of "Things that Can Be Perfected"? If we aren't thinking in terms of >> the distance between what our students currently believe about the >> nature of successful writing and writers and what more experienced >> writers tend to do and think, I'm afraid we're mostly tilting at >> windmills. >> >> Cheers -- >> Doug >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dr. Doug Downs >> Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric >> Writing Program Coordinator >> Dept. of English and Literature >> Utah Valley State College >> 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 >> LA 126g >> 801-863-8572 >> >>>>> "Kathy Fitch" 9/19/2007 8:11 PM >>> >> >> << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including >> them in >> the full reports.>> >> >> Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." >> I >> think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >> blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the >> real >> teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even >> when we >> are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize >> them. >> Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all >> about >> those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing >> here* >> like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, >> and so >> I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc >> and >> Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling >> them >> about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers >> are >> probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue >> at all >> about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" >> should >> of course entail. So.) >> >> In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English teacher >> that >> writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >> courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, >> I'd >> often rather write for a course in which I could determine the >> assignment, >> record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to >> get a >> question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done >> than >> write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops >> (ick!), >> group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my >> enthusiasm for >> the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper >> off >> the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >> occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, >> when >> they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark >> that >> they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful >> thing, >> so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to >> say >> about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays >> out in >> the writing classroom. >> >> >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:52:56 -0600 >> From: "Doug Downs" >> To: >> Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> By the way, Elizabeth's preliminary sense of things is consistent with >> other research, such as the study Susan Miller did with four students >> (sorry I don't have a cite for this) some time ago. Her students, too, >> reported rarely encountering writing projects in non-writing classes >> that forced them to take writing as seriously as they had in their >> writing classes. >> >> Well, what the heck. No class forced me to take astronomy quite as >> seriously as my astronomy class did. Are we surprised? (Rich Haswell >> and others have done research suggesting that students write differently >> for other teachers than for English teachers because of the perception >> that other teachers will grade their content but not their writing. >> 'Cause those are separate, of course.) >> >> Of course, the existence of the astronomy course was not predicated on >> the assumption that I would need to be prepared to do astronomy because >> every other course in the university would require me to have high >> astronomy "skills." It is the assumption that writing can be taught out >> of context -- of generalizability -- that puts FYC -- and us -- in such >> a precarious position. Back again to why it's so important to think in >> terms of what is generalizable and teach for it. >> >> Cheers -- >> Doug >> >> >> Dr. Doug Downs >> Asst. Professor, Composition & Rhetoric >> Writing Program Coordinator >> Dept. of English and Literature >> Utah Valley State College >> 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 >> LA 126g >> 801-863-8572 >> >>>>> 9/20/2007 6:55 AM >>> >> I have a great deal of respect for other teachers and we have some >> very >> good ones here, many of whom have completed Steve Wilhoit's WAC seminar >> and >> are really trying to get students to engage with writing. The students >> in >> my study are extremely clear that there are assignments that engage >> them, >> teachers who engage them, and when those come along, the students are >> excited to talk about them. When they don't come along, I am interested >> to >> know what triggers the students not to generalize or engage. And it >> usually >> is something pretty complex, a combination of lack of time, lack of >> interest in the subject, recognition that they can satisfy the teacher >> without exerting a lot of effort, etc etc. >> >> I have made careful efforts to ask text- and process-based questions >> that >> don't encourage bad mouthing of other teachers. But I do want to know >> what >> happens when students engage/generalize and what happens when they >> don't, >> and I can't think of a way to get at that without some form of >> interview. >> >> It helps a lot in avoiding the pitfalls you describe to focus my >> analytical >> lens on the system. I'm not particularly interested in teacher A or >> teacher >> B. I'm interested in what aspects of the system engage students and >> which >> don't. Teachers are part of the system. When I see students "subvert" >> very >> good assignments in order to intentionally not engage, that is a >> systemic >> issue, not a teacher issue. >> >> Maybe an example is in order. My most complicated student, Matt, took >> a >> report and proposal class. One of the assignments was to work with a >> local >> non-profit and write a grant proposal for them. They were supposed to >> work >> with a real client. Matt claims he would have learned a lot from doing >> that >> and that he that it was a good assignment. But he didn't do it. He had >> a >> friend who worked at a non-profit and he got that person to give him >> materials, and then he and his group proceeded to pretend to work for >> the >> client. So, Matt claims to have learned nothing but he told me >> multiple >> what a good assignment that would have been if he had really done it. >> He >> just didn't. The conversation we had was not about the teacher at all; >> it >> was about what Matt found engaging and why he did not engage and what >> he >> did do in writing, and so on. So there are ways to focus the interview >> on >> the activities and the system and the way the student understands >> those >> rather than turning the interview into a critique-fest of other >> teachers. >> >> Elizabeth >> >> Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Director of Writing Programs >> Internship Coordinator >> Department of English >> Humanities 277 >> University of Dayton >> Dayton, Ohio >> 937-229-3003 >> ewardle@udayton.edu >> >> -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- >> >> To: >> From: "Kathy Fitch" >> Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: 09/19/2007 10:11PM >> Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] Why study transfer? >> >> >> << recognizing them, minimizing them, making choices, and including >> them in >> the full reports.>> >> >> Well put, Tiane--I hope I meant all of that with the shorthand "avoid." >> I >> think I did! I suppose the alarm that goes off for me is the one that >> blares whenever I sense us edging up on any version of "we are the >> real >> teachers." It's such a pervasive thing, and all too easy to do, even >> when >> we >> are aware of the pitfalls, and consciously attempting to minimize >> them. >> Certainly, students have subtly drawn me into that conversation (all >> about >> those other teachers whose classes weren't *fill in positive thing >> here* >> like *this* one is), even when I definitely didn't want to go there, >> and so >> I'm cautious about it, always. Now, if we could get their Econ and Soc >> and >> Philosophy and Psych etc. teachers to report what students are telling >> them >> about English, we'd be on to something new. (And, often, those teachers >> are >> probably hearing that Comp left their mystified students with no clue >> at >> all >> about how to do the things those teachers think "writing education" >> should >> of course entail. So.) >> >> In any case, it's hard to envision a student telling an English >> teacher >> that >> writing is much more fulfilling, sensible, fun, or whatever in other >> courses, even though this may well be the case for them. Certainly, >> I'd >> often rather write for a course in which I could determine the >> assignment, >> record the due date, maybe touch base with the teacher now and then to >> get >> a >> question answered, and then work on my own until the thing was done >> than >> write for one that entailed endless drafts, peer review workshops >> (ick!), >> group work (double-ick), and so many revisions that all of my >> enthusiasm >> for >> the topic at hand ran out well before I could check that darned paper >> off >> the list of things to do. It isn't easy, I don't think, to create the >> occasion in which students are clearly able to say things like that, >> when >> they are the case. However, I *have* heard lots of teachers remark >> that >> they struggle a good bit to make peer-review (for one) a meaningful >> thing, >> so it might be very interesting, indeed, to see what students have to >> say >> about the general value, for them, of that activity as it often plays >> out >> in >> the writing classroom. >> >> >> Kathy >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and >> update >> your information. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > ---- Message was truncated ---- > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update > your information. > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Mon Sep 24 03:37:54 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Heather Lettner-Rust) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar Message-ID: <20070923223754.DKU31025@mail.longwood.edu> Hello all- I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. 1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in new situations. 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the general education public/civic writing seminar. Background: It’s an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all students through before graduation. Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were “done with English.” Also, they’re too busy with their majors to want to divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they don’t find community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained them to do—-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. But I’d like to study why they have this difficulty. More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: 1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I “find” it? (In particular, they don’t seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesn’t have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a syllabus.) 2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms of content, style, arrangement. Questions: I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). So, why are these difficulties so apparent? Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. Is it a developmental issue (I’m thinking of Perry’s scale here) 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or writing pieces in our course? Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to chart their “transformation”? The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. Heather Lettner-Rust, doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. Longwood University 201 High Street Farmville, VA 23909 office: 204 Barlow phone: 434.395.2178 From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Mon Sep 24 15:18:29 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar Message-ID: Hi Heather, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This will be fun! So the way I read your email is that you believe that students should have done things previously that would enable them to do the work in your seminar, but they aren't doing that work to your satisfaction. Is that a correct read on my part? If so, the first thing I would do is question your first assumption--that students have done things elsewhere that should enable them to successfully complete the work in your course. Do you know this to be the case? How do you know? You specifically mention research--knowing how to find a gap, articulate an issue. What are students' previous experiences with research like this? Where have they specifically been taught to conduct such research? You also mention that students aren't writing in ways that are situationally appropriate. Again, I would want to know where else do students write in ways that address the kind of situation found in your seminar? My initial thinking is that before you can look for transfer, you need to ascertain whether, in fact, there is something to transfer (more accurately, I would say whether there is something for them to generalize, because it will change shape in your class). Have students really been taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect of them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it. How do you find out whether they've encountered similar kinds of research and contexts previously? That's tricky. I don't think you can depend on students for the information; I am not sure that surveys of teachers would tell you, either, because you are looking for something in an assignment that is rhetorically complicated. One way might be to find out which prior classes assign research and extended writing and then collect assignments from those classes and interview the teachers about those assignments. Even better would be to collect "good" responses to the assignments to see if the student papers do, in fact, exhibit the characteristics you are looking for. If you discover that students have written/researched elsewhere in related ways that you think are transferable/generalizable, you might be able to explicitly draw in those experiences in class to encourage the transfer (they need to know, as Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom say, that "the chair is sit-on-able"). If it turns out that students aren't doing much research and writing *of the kind you want* elsewhere, then there might not be much for them to transfer. In that case, you may find ways to teach what you want from them without expecting they should already be able to produce those things. This will make a great dissertation! Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com From: Heather Lettner-Rust Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/23/2007 10:37PM Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar Hello all- I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. 1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in new situations. 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the general education public/civic writing seminar. Background: It’s an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all students through before graduation. Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were “done with English.” Also, they’re too busy with their majors to want to divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they don’t find community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained them to do—-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. But I’d like to study why they have this difficulty. More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: 1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I “find” it? (In particular, they don’t seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesn’t have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a syllabus.) 2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms of content, style, arrangement. Questions: I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). So, why are these difficulties so apparent? Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. Is it a developmental issue (I’m thinking of Perry’s scale here) 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or writing pieces in our course? Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to chart their “transformation”? The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. Heather Lettner-Rust, doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. Longwood University 201 High Street Farmville, VA 23909 office: 204 Barlow phone: 434.395.2178 _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Mon Sep 24 19:30:35 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:30:35 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070924180543.EF9DF1C809D@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> <> Well put--no doubt this is often the crux of the matter. So, wherever transfer or generalization is an issue, articulation efforts must come to the forefront. Students aren't likely to communicate any better across the curriculum than their teachers do. Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 02:48:16 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Heather Lettner-Rust) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer Message-ID: <20070924214816.DKV32585@mail.longwood.edu> Elizabeth and Rich, You have given me much to consider. After teaching FYC comp for a couple of years, I learned not to assume the transfer of many skills from high school. Since teaching this senior course, I have learned not to assume that they have done work like this. Once I spend much time explicitly teaching the mental and "literate" moves around the subject, they do understand the concepts 'around' rhetorical situations. But would it be fair then to say that not much transfers at all? Are we saying (are you in your research finding) that there's not much that transfers or is generalizable even with a rhet-based FYC? Our best bet is Writing Studies to study and practice writing as a situated activity? Heather Heather Lettner-Rust, Lecturer English & Modern Languages Dept. Longwood University 201 High Street Farmville, VA 23909 office: 204 Barlow phone: 434.395.2178 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT) >From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1268 - 4 msgs >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to > teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com > >You can reach the person managing the list at > teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar (Heather Lettner-Rust) > 2. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >From: Heather Lettner-Rust >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:37:54 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Hello all- > >I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. > >1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in new situations. > >2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? > >My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the general education public/civic writing seminar. > >Background: It’s an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all students through before graduation. >Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were “done with English.” Also, they’re too busy with their majors to want to divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they don’t find community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained them to do—-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. > >But I’d like to study why they have this difficulty. > >More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: > >1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I “find” it? (In particular, they don’t seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesn’t have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a syllabus.) > >2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms of content, style, arrangement. > >Questions: >I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >So, why are these difficulties so apparent? > >Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. > >Is it a developmental issue (I’m thinking of Perry’s scale here) > > >3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? > >Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or writing pieces in our course? > >Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to chart their “transformation”? > > > >The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. > >Heather Lettner-Rust, >doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >Longwood University >201 High Street >Farmville, VA 23909 > >office: 204 Barlow >phone: 434.395.2178 > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar >From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:29 -0400 >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Hi Heather, >Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This will be fun! > >So the way I read your email is that you believe that students should have >done things previously that would enable them to do the work in your >seminar, but they aren't doing that work to your satisfaction. Is that a >correct read on my part? > >If so, the first thing I would do is question your first assumption--that >students have done things elsewhere that should enable them to successfully >complete the work in your course. Do you know this to be the case? How do >you know? You specifically mention research--knowing how to find a gap, >articulate an issue. What are students' previous experiences with research >like this? Where have they specifically been taught to conduct such >research? You also mention that students aren't writing in ways that are >situationally appropriate. Again, I would want to know where else do >students write in ways that address the kind of situation found in your >seminar? > >My initial thinking is that before you can look for transfer, you need to >ascertain whether, in fact, there is something to transfer (more >accurately, I would say whether there is something for them to generalize, >because it will change shape in your class). Have students really been >taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect of >them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and >my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it. > >How do you find out whether they've encountered similar kinds of research >and contexts previously? That's tricky. I don't think you can depend on >students for the information; I am not sure that surveys of teachers would >tell you, either, because you are looking for something in an assignment >that is rhetorically complicated. One way might be to find out which prior >classes assign research and extended writing and then collect assignments >from those classes and interview the teachers about those assignments. Even >better would be to collect "good" responses to the assignments to see if >the student papers do, in fact, exhibit the characteristics you are looking >for. > >If you discover that students have written/researched elsewhere in related >ways that you think are transferable/generalizable, you might be able to >explicitly draw in those experiences in class to encourage the transfer >(they need to know, as Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom say, that "the chair is >sit-on-able"). > >If it turns out that students aren't doing much research and writing *of >the kind you want* elsewhere, then there might not be much for them to >transfer. In that case, you may find ways to teach what you want from them >without expecting they should already be able to produce those things. > >This will make a great dissertation! > >Elizabeth > >Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >Assistant Professor >Director of Writing Programs >Internship Coordinator >Department of English >Humanities 277 >University of Dayton >Dayton, Ohio >937-229-3003 >ewardle@udayton.edu > >-----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >From: Heather Lettner-Rust >Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >Date: 09/23/2007 10:37PM >Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed >Writing Seminar > >Hello all- > >I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. > >1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to >undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach >by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also >re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in >new situations. > >2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? > >My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the >general education public/civic writing seminar. > >Background: It’s an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all >students through before graduation. >Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix >and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition >requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were >“done with English.” Also, they’re too busy with their majors to want to >divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they don’t find >community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. >Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained >them to do—-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. > >But I’d like to study why they have this difficulty. > >More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: > >1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and >also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I “find” it? (In >particular, they don’t seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesn’t >have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a >syllabus.) > >2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms >of content, style, arrangement. > >Questions: >I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require >writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty >because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also >the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more >able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >So, why are these difficulties so apparent? > >Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly >rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. > >Is it a developmental issue (I’m thinking of Perry’s scale here) > > >3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? > >Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or >writing pieces in our course? > >Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to >chart their “transformation”? > > > >The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. > >Heather Lettner-Rust, >doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >Longwood University >201 High Street >Farmville, VA 23909 > >office: 204 Barlow >phone: 434.395.2178 > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >your information. > > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > >End of Teaching_Composition Digest From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 12:00:15 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:00:15 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Heather and all, I'm sorry not to have responded quickly. The ideas we're discussing here are central to me but they are also ideas with which I struggle a great deal, and it's taken me a bit to articulate just a beginning reply. This discussion links to two others I've been working on, the idea of "readiness" and the idea of "developmental" (in particular, the ways gen ed is supposed to be "developmentally-based"). I think the suggestion about how you might track back through assignments students have worked on earlier (and potentially good student responses) and analyze them for the characteristics you want is very, very helpful--you might be really surprised by what students have been doing. Elizabeth's questions get right at another key issue as well, that of our need as faculty to know so much more about what our colleagues ask students to do and why. The "drawing-on" that we need to do is, I think, essential. This statement from Elizabeth gives me pause, though-- "Have students really been taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect of them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it." On the one hand we certainly want what students learn in different contexts to be somehow linked or related, but on the other hand transfer, to me, is in good part about what kernels (best word?) might be drawn upon in new situations, re-employed, even when nothing like what someone did before is being encountered. This is the source of part of my trouble with many, many secondary/post-secondary discussions in which people try to determine what activities students should have in high school that will make them "ready for" activities in college. In some ways, transition probably can't really be easy across different situations. But in other ways, we transfer every minute--consider our use of language, the way we relatively effortlessly (in many contexts) re-employ what we've learned. Think of new cultural contexts into which we do move. Etc. etc. I'm very interested in trying to locate ways we do transfer and understanding what made them possible, building on the kind of work Elizabeth and I summarized in the initial module. The two difficulties you describe your students having don't seem, at least at first glance, to be "developmental" problems la Perry (or other models). A hypothesis you might add to your already good list of hypotheses is one about the course itself--it seems almost like a "reverse" issue--students moving from gen ed into the major, working for some time in the major, becoming part of that world, and then in a capstone being asked to move back out of the major (as they prepare not only to graduate but perhaps to go to grad school?). There are my disjointed thoughts about all this. I will follow-up. Thank you for starting this discussion! Tiane On 9/24/07 4:18 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" wrote: > Hi Heather, > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This will be fun! > > So the way I read your email is that you believe that students should have > done things previously that would enable them to do the work in your > seminar, but they aren't doing that work to your satisfaction. Is that a > correct read on my part? > > If so, the first thing I would do is question your first assumption--that > students have done things elsewhere that should enable them to successfully > complete the work in your course. Do you know this to be the case? How do > you know? You specifically mention research--knowing how to find a gap, > articulate an issue. What are students' previous experiences with research > like this? Where have they specifically been taught to conduct such > research? You also mention that students aren't writing in ways that are > situationally appropriate. Again, I would want to know where else do > students write in ways that address the kind of situation found in your > seminar? > > My initial thinking is that before you can look for transfer, you need to > ascertain whether, in fact, there is something to transfer (more > accurately, I would say whether there is something for them to generalize, > because it will change shape in your class). Have students really been > taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect of > them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and > my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it. > > How do you find out whether they've encountered similar kinds of research > and contexts previously? That's tricky. I don't think you can depend on > students for the information; I am not sure that surveys of teachers would > tell you, either, because you are looking for something in an assignment > that is rhetorically complicated. One way might be to find out which prior > classes assign research and extended writing and then collect assignments > from those classes and interview the teachers about those assignments. Even > better would be to collect "good" responses to the assignments to see if > the student papers do, in fact, exhibit the characteristics you are looking > for. > > If you discover that students have written/researched elsewhere in related > ways that you think are transferable/generalizable, you might be able to > explicitly draw in those experiences in class to encourage the transfer > (they need to know, as Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom say, that "the chair is > sit-on-able"). > > If it turns out that students aren't doing much research and writing *of > the kind you want* elsewhere, then there might not be much for them to > transfer. In that case, you may find ways to teach what you want from them > without expecting they should already be able to produce those things. > > This will make a great dissertation! > > Elizabeth > > Elizabeth Wardle, PhD > Assistant Professor > Director of Writing Programs > Internship Coordinator > Department of English > Humanities 277 > University of Dayton > Dayton, Ohio > 937-229-3003 > ewardle@udayton.edu > > -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > From: Heather Lettner-Rust > Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > Date: 09/23/2007 10:37PM > Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed > Writing Seminar > > Hello all- > > I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. > > 1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to > undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach > by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also > re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in > new situations. > > 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? > > My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the > general education public/civic writing seminar. > > Background: Its an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all > students through before graduation. > Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix > and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition > requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were > done with English. Also, theyre too busy with their majors to want to > divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they dont find > community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. > Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained > them to do-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. > > But Id like to study why they have this difficulty. > > More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: > > 1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and > also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I find it? (In > particular, they dont seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesnt > have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a > syllabus.) > > 2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms > of content, style, arrangement. > > Questions: > I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require > writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty > because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also > the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more > able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). > So, why are these difficulties so apparent? > > Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly > rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. > > Is it a developmental issue (Im thinking of Perrys scale here) > > > 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? > > Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or > writing pieces in our course? > > Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to > chart their transformation? > > > > The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. > > Heather Lettner-Rust, > doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU > Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. > Longwood University > 201 High Street > Farmville, VA 23909 > > office: 204 Barlow > phone: 434.395.2178 > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update > your information. > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 12:33:40 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:33:40 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer In-Reply-To: <20070924214816.DKV32585@mail.longwood.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, I seem to be getting messages out of order--I haven't seen Rich's yet. Just a quick thought, here--I have found so far in my study (but it is far from complete in terms of analysis) that among other things students often know some things about writing that they simply don't put into practice. For example, just a simple thing in terms of process, students report to me that they learned how valuable revision is, in their FYC. They also report that they rarely draft or revise in other courses, largely because they don't have time or they don't see the need because the writing will be evaluated on its content and they associate revision with form and grammar. This brings us back to earlier discussions about students' needs, awarenesses, desires and motivations... Tiane On 9/25/07 3:48 AM, "Heather Lettner-Rust" wrote: > Elizabeth and Rich, > > You have given me much to consider. > > After teaching FYC comp for a couple of years, I learned not to assume the > transfer of many skills from high school. > > Since teaching this senior course, I have learned not to assume that they have > done work like this. Once I spend much time explicitly teaching the mental > and "literate" moves around the subject, they do understand the concepts > 'around' rhetorical situations. > > But would it be fair then to say that not much transfers at all? Are we > saying (are you in your research finding) that there's not much that transfers > or is generalizable even with a rhet-based FYC? Our best bet is Writing > Studies to study and practice writing as a situated activity? > > Heather > > > Heather Lettner-Rust, Lecturer > English & Modern Languages Dept. > Longwood University > 201 High Street > Farmville, VA 23909 > > office: 204 Barlow > phone: 434.395.2178 > > > > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT) >> From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1268 - 4 msgs >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to >> teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing >> Seminar (Heather Lettner-Rust) >> 2. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing >> Seminar (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 1 >> From: Heather Lettner-Rust >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:37:54 -0400 (EDT) >> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed >> Writing >> Seminar >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Hello all- >> >> I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. >> >> 1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to undertake >> a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach by producing >> some writing skills developed in other situations and also re-designing new >> skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in new situations. >> >> 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? >> >> My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the >> general education public/civic writing seminar. >> >> Background: Its an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all >> students through before graduation. >> Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix and >> placement of this course in their academic career. This composition >> requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were >> done with English. Also, theyre too busy with their majors to want to >> divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they dont find >> community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. >> Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained them >> to do-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. >> >> But Id like to study why they have this difficulty. >> >> More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: >> >> 1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and >> also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I find it? (In >> particular, they dont seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesnt >> have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a syllabus.) >> >> 2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms >> of content, style, arrangement. >> >> Questions: >> I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require >> writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty >> because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also the >> timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more able >> to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >> So, why are these difficulties so apparent? >> >> Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly >> rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. >> >> Is it a developmental issue (Im thinking of Perrys scale here) >> >> >> 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? >> >> Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or writing >> pieces in our course? >> >> Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to >> chart their transformation? >> >> >> >> The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. >> >> Heather Lettner-Rust, >> doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >> Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >> Longwood University >> 201 High Street >> Farmville, VA 23909 >> >> office: 204 Barlow >> phone: 434.395.2178 >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 2 >> Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed >> Writing >> Seminar >> From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:29 -0400 >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Hi Heather, >> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This will be fun! >> >> So the way I read your email is that you believe that students should have >> done things previously that would enable them to do the work in your >> seminar, but they aren't doing that work to your satisfaction. Is that a >> correct read on my part? >> >> If so, the first thing I would do is question your first assumption--that >> students have done things elsewhere that should enable them to successfully >> complete the work in your course. Do you know this to be the case? How do >> you know? You specifically mention research--knowing how to find a gap, >> articulate an issue. What are students' previous experiences with research >> like this? Where have they specifically been taught to conduct such >> research? You also mention that students aren't writing in ways that are >> situationally appropriate. Again, I would want to know where else do >> students write in ways that address the kind of situation found in your >> seminar? >> >> My initial thinking is that before you can look for transfer, you need to >> ascertain whether, in fact, there is something to transfer (more >> accurately, I would say whether there is something for them to generalize, >> because it will change shape in your class). Have students really been >> taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect of >> them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and >> my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it. >> >> How do you find out whether they've encountered similar kinds of research >> and contexts previously? That's tricky. I don't think you can depend on >> students for the information; I am not sure that surveys of teachers would >> tell you, either, because you are looking for something in an assignment >> that is rhetorically complicated. One way might be to find out which prior >> classes assign research and extended writing and then collect assignments >> from those classes and interview the teachers about those assignments. Even >> better would be to collect "good" responses to the assignments to see if >> the student papers do, in fact, exhibit the characteristics you are looking >> for. >> >> If you discover that students have written/researched elsewhere in related >> ways that you think are transferable/generalizable, you might be able to >> explicitly draw in those experiences in class to encourage the transfer >> (they need to know, as Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom say, that "the chair is >> sit-on-able"). >> >> If it turns out that students aren't doing much research and writing *of >> the kind you want* elsewhere, then there might not be much for them to >> transfer. In that case, you may find ways to teach what you want from them >> without expecting they should already be able to produce those things. >> >> This will make a great dissertation! >> >> Elizabeth >> >> Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Director of Writing Programs >> Internship Coordinator >> Department of English >> Humanities 277 >> University of Dayton >> Dayton, Ohio >> 937-229-3003 >> ewardle@udayton.edu >> >> -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- >> >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> From: Heather Lettner-Rust >> Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: 09/23/2007 10:37PM >> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed >> Writing Seminar >> >> Hello all- >> >> I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. >> >> 1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to >> undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach >> by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also >> re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in >> new situations. >> >> 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? >> >> My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the >> general education public/civic writing seminar. >> >> Background: Its an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all >> students through before graduation. >> Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix >> and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition >> requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were >> done with English. Also, theyre too busy with their majors to want to >> divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they dont find >> community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. >> Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained >> them to do-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. >> >> But Id like to study why they have this difficulty. >> >> More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: >> >> 1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and >> also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I find it? (In >> particular, they dont seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesnt >> have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a >> syllabus.) >> >> 2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms >> of content, style, arrangement. >> >> Questions: >> I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require >> writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty >> because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also >> the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more >> able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >> So, why are these difficulties so apparent? >> >> Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly >> rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. >> >> Is it a developmental issue (Im thinking of Perrys scale here) >> >> >> 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? >> >> Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or >> writing pieces in our course? >> >> Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to >> chart their transformation? >> >> >> >> The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. >> >> Heather Lettner-Rust, >> doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >> Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >> Longwood University >> 201 High Street >> Farmville, VA 23909 >> >> office: 204 Barlow >> phone: 434.395.2178 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >> your information. >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> >> End of Teaching_Composition Digest > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 14:30:09 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:30:09 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar Message-ID: Tiane wrote: "This statement from Elizabeth gives me pause, though-- "Have students really been taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect of them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it." On the one hand we certainly want what students learn in different contexts to be somehow linked or related, but on the other hand transfer, to me, is in good part about what kernels (best word?) might be drawn upon in new situations, re-employed, even when nothing like what someone did before is being encountered." Yes, Tiane is completely correct. I did not mean to suggest that the students would have encountered that rhetorical situation and could then easily take what they learned somewhere else or that they wouldn't have encountered it so then wouldn't know what to do. This is the matter of near vs far transfer that I think someone mentioned before; it is also a matter of generalization and whether the students are able to take what they have done to help them do the new kinds of writing. What I meant to do was simply suggest an exercise, a list of questions to get Heather thinking about where to focus her study. Does she want to focus on what students did before, or does she already know a lot about what students did before? Because her thoughts on students' inability to write in ways appropriate to the situation are really interesting, I was thinking it would be useful to know what situations the students had written for (successfully) before. That way, Heather 1)knows what they have done and how similar or different it is from what she is asking so 2) she can determine what she wants to be looking at and for in the work students do in her class, which would be where she might see if they can engage in near and far transfer, how they generalize, what strategies they draw upon to do so, and so on. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 14:53:01 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer Message-ID: Heather, I just want to clarify that I wasn't questioning your assumptions as a teacher; I was trying to generate possible questions the answers to which might help you find the place to focus your study. Your question about whether transfer occurs at all is an interesting one. I would like to answer it generally first, drawing on an overview from Perkins and Salomon. And then I'd like to come back to the question of transfer from FYC later, since it think that is a much more complicated question. A lot of the transfer research does suggest that not much transfers within school settings. Salomon and Perkins write: "...transfer is especially important to learning theory and educational practice because very often the kinds of transfer hoped for do not occur." In particular, "near transfer seems to have much better prospects than far transfer." Yet they go on to say that the important question is "under what conditions does transfer appear?" And they have a big list of those conditions: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/traencyn.htm. And we have another one on the Teaching Comp module. Salomon and Perkins note that "in many situations, transfer will indeed take care of itself ─ situations where the conditions of reflexive transfer are met more or less automatically." In other situations, the conditions for transfer are far less favorable, so we need to teach for it. And they provide some ways to do that (I particularly like their discussion of hugging and bridging). Salomon and Perkins end with this: "In summary, a superficial look at how research on transfer casts its vote is discouraging. The preponderance of studies suggest that transfer comes hard. However, a closer examination of the conditions under which transfer does and does not occur and the mechanisms at work presents a more positive picture. Education can achieve abundant transfer if it is designed to do so." This is why I think what is interesting about your study is that if you can determine what sorts of research students have done before and which rhetorical situations students have written for successfully before, you might be able to see under what conditions the far transfer or generalization you are looking for occurs. And it seems to me like you have already pinpointed one answer: it occurs when you teach for it, in particular, when you teach certain kinds of moves. So perhaps that is one site where you can really dig in and see what happens before and after you teach those moves. I am not sure how you would distinguish what you do as teaching for transfer versus teaching something new, though. I guess that is why I think it would be useful to know exactly what students were writing and researching before. Regardless of whether you ever pinpoint this, if you find out that teaching certain moves helps students produce better writing, that will be a useful finding. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com From: Heather Lettner-Rust Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/24/2007 09:48PM Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer Elizabeth and Rich, You have given me much to consider. After teaching FYC comp for a couple of years, I learned not to assume the transfer of many skills from high school. Since teaching this senior course, I have learned not to assume that they have done work like this. Once I spend much time explicitly teaching the mental and "literate" moves around the subject, they do understand the concepts 'around' rhetorical situations. But would it be fair then to say that not much transfers at all? Are we saying (are you in your research finding) that there's not much that transfers or is generalizable even with a rhet-based FYC? Our best bet is Writing Studies to study and practice writing as a situated activity? Heather Heather Lettner-Rust, Lecturer English & Modern Languages Dept. Longwood University 201 High Street Farmville, VA 23909 office: 204 Barlow phone: 434.395.2178 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT) >From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1268 - 4 msgs >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to > teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com > >You can reach the person managing the list at > teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar (Heather Lettner-Rust) > 2. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >From: Heather Lettner-Rust >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:37:54 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Hello all- > >I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. > >1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in new situations. > >2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? > >My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the general education public/civic writing seminar. > >Background: It’s an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all students through before graduation. >Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were “done with English.” Also, they’re too busy with their majors to want to divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they don’t find community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained them to do—-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. > >But I’d like to study why they have this difficulty. > >More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: > >1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I “find” it? (In particular, they don’t seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesn’t have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a syllabus.) > >2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms of content, style, arrangement. > >Questions: >I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >So, why are these difficulties so apparent? > >Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. > >Is it a developmental issue (I’m thinking of Perry’s scale here) > > >3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? > >Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or writing pieces in our course? > >Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to chart their “transformation”? > > > >The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. > >Heather Lettner-Rust, >doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >Longwood University >201 High Street >Farmville, VA 23909 > >office: 204 Barlow >phone: 434.395.2178 > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing > Seminar >From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:29 -0400 >Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > >Hi Heather, >Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This will be fun! > >So the way I read your email is that you believe that students should have >done things previously that would enable them to do the work in your >seminar, but they aren't doing that work to your satisfaction. Is that a >correct read on my part? > >If so, the first thing I would do is question your first assumption--that >students have done things elsewhere that should enable them to successfully >complete the work in your course. Do you know this to be the case? How do >you know? You specifically mention research--knowing how to find a gap, >articulate an issue. What are students' previous experiences with research >like this? Where have they specifically been taught to conduct such >research? You also mention that students aren't writing in ways that are >situationally appropriate. Again, I would want to know where else do >students write in ways that address the kind of situation found in your >seminar? > >My initial thinking is that before you can look for transfer, you need to >ascertain whether, in fact, there is something to transfer (more >accurately, I would say whether there is something for them to generalize, >because it will change shape in your class). Have students really been >taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect of >them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and >my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it. > >How do you find out whether they've encountered similar kinds of research >and contexts previously? That's tricky. I don't think you can depend on >students for the information; I am not sure that surveys of teachers would >tell you, either, because you are looking for something in an assignment >that is rhetorically complicated. One way might be to find out which prior >classes assign research and extended writing and then collect assignments >from those classes and interview the teachers about those assignments. Even >better would be to collect "good" responses to the assignments to see if >the student papers do, in fact, exhibit the characteristics you are looking >for. > >If you discover that students have written/researched elsewhere in related >ways that you think are transferable/generalizable, you might be able to >explicitly draw in those experiences in class to encourage the transfer >(they need to know, as Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom say, that "the chair is >sit-on-able"). > >If it turns out that students aren't doing much research and writing *of >the kind you want* elsewhere, then there might not be much for them to >transfer. In that case, you may find ways to teach what you want from them >without expecting they should already be able to produce those things. > >This will make a great dissertation! > >Elizabeth > >Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >Assistant Professor >Director of Writing Programs >Internship Coordinator >Department of English >Humanities 277 >University of Dayton >Dayton, Ohio >937-229-3003 >ewardle@udayton.edu > >-----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > >To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >From: Heather Lettner-Rust >Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >Date: 09/23/2007 10:37PM >Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed >Writing Seminar > >Hello all- > >I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. > >1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to >undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach >by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also >re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in >new situations. > >2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? > >My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the >general education public/civic writing seminar. > >Background: It’s an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all >students through before graduation. >Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix >and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition >requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were >“done with English.” Also, they’re too busy with their majors to want to >divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they don’t find >community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. >Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained >them to do—-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. > >But I’d like to study why they have this difficulty. > >More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: > >1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and >also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I “find” it? (In >particular, they don’t seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesn’t >have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a >syllabus.) > >2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in terms >of content, style, arrangement. > >Questions: >I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who require >writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty >because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also >the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more >able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >So, why are these difficulties so apparent? > >Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly >rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. > >Is it a developmental issue (I’m thinking of Perry’s scale here) > > >3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? > >Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or >writing pieces in our course? > >Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to >chart their “transformation”? > > > >The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. > >Heather Lettner-Rust, >doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >Longwood University >201 High Street >Farmville, VA 23909 > >office: 204 Barlow >phone: 434.395.2178 > > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > >To unsubscribe, please visit >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >your information. > > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > >End of Teaching_Composition Digest _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 15:11:43 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:11:43 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think we're in complete agreement, Elizabeth. I'm sorry I misinterpreted the statement! In addition, I think we're both getting at how important it is to know more, in any case, about what students are writing elsewhere than in our courses, and I think Kathy's post affirms that too. Tiane On 9/25/07 3:30 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" wrote: > Tiane wrote: > "This statement from Elizabeth gives me pause, though-- "Have students > really been taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that > you expect of them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds > complex, and my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else > like it." On the one hand we certainly want what students learn in > different contexts to be somehow linked or related, but on the other hand > transfer, to me, is in good part about what kernels (best word?) might be > drawn upon in new situations, re-employed, even when nothing like what > someone did before is being encountered." > > Yes, Tiane is completely correct. I did not mean to suggest that the > students would have encountered that rhetorical situation and could then > easily take what they learned somewhere else or that they wouldn't have > encountered it so then wouldn't know what to do. This is the matter of near > vs far transfer that I think someone mentioned before; it is also a matter > of generalization and whether the students are able to take what they have > done to help them do the new kinds of writing. > > What I meant to do was simply suggest an exercise, a list of questions to > get Heather thinking about where to focus her study. Does she want to focus > on what students did before, or does she already know a lot about what > students did before? > > Because her thoughts on students' inability to write in ways appropriate to > the situation are really interesting, I was thinking it would be useful to > know what situations the students had written for (successfully) before. > That way, Heather 1)knows what they have done and how similar or different > it is from what she is asking so 2) she can determine what she wants to be > looking at and for in the work students do in her class, which would be > where she might see if they can engage in near and far transfer, how they > generalize, what strategies they draw upon to do so, and so on. > > Elizabeth > > Elizabeth Wardle, PhD > Assistant Professor > Director of Writing Programs > Internship Coordinator > Department of English > Humanities 277 > University of Dayton > Dayton, Ohio > 937-229-3003 > ewardle@udayton.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 15:13:19 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Kathy Fitch) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:13:19 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070925134824.5968A1C802F@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> <> This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers, those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening. But, after following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy bit is at the heart of things. The trick is at least twofold: cast articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the heart of learning pulses. (Other folds: rethink testing, value exploration and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.) Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his Last Lecture. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184 So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular, and much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular. That it ends with a bridge seems perfect. Articulation should be about bridges, not gates. Kathy From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 15:31:50 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Richard Haswell) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:31:50 -0500 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tiane's term "re-employ" is crucial. All the major post-adolescent developmental studies since William Perry have stressed the notion, although it goes under a variety of names. The most wide-spread are "qualitative" and "transformative." Underlying frames or perspectives change, which change then transforms all kinds of overlying skills and knowledge. So during the third year of college a student's concept of work changes, in part because the student decides on a professional major in architecture. That may alter the way the student employs writing skills learned or reinforced in English 101. Perhaps concrete specifics which the student has employed to make scenes in a personal literacy narrative "credible to the reader" and thereby to please the teacher are now re-employed to match the style the student finds in architectural publications and to make the student's writing "look professional." How would you research Tiane's phenomenon of "re-employment"? A crucial bind (crucial = crux) is the fact that the student may be unaware of the change. Developmentalists have long wrestled with the question of why people remember so little of the major transformative changes that developmentalists think they can document. One answer is that a people's metaconscious ability to reflect on their current intellectual frames also change; the means to understand a previous developmental position are lost along with the developmental position. You can't just ask students about how they are transferring writing skills/knowledge. Certainly when they can't come up with an answer, you can't assume no transfer has taken place. If so, then the research method must use some kind of triangulation. A basic triangulation, often used, would consist of three angles: the student's understandings (interview), the researcher's insights (reflection), and the student's writings (text-analysis). The three can interact, of course. The researcher might notice the change of purpose and context with concrete detail in the student's first-year and third-year writings and ask the student about it. But plenty of other perspectives can be applied, with good promise. Since so much of both composing and of skill-transfer is unconscious, I can't think of any research approach that would not use some form of triangulation. On developmental transformative change, a good take is Jack Mezirow et al.(Eds.), Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000, especially his leading contribution, "Critical reflection triggers transformative learning," pp. 1-20) Rich From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Tue Sep 25 18:00:46 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:00:46 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar In-Reply-To: <20070925134824.5968A1C802F@smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com> Message-ID: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Kathy's right. My questions about what has happened elsewhere aren't blame questions. They are information-seeking questions. Note that I didn't say students *should* have encountered an equally complex rhetorical situation elsewhere; rather, I want to know whether they have. It would be a poor researcher indeed who went into a project acting on the unsubstantiated assumption that students couldn't do something because other teachers should have taught them to but didn't. Researchers need to question every assumption they have and find out what is going on and why it is going on. One thing I have found really fascinating (but which was probably already as obvious as the day is long to everyone else) in my own study is that students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago, looking for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do the current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere. Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't *need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place. I would assume (though someone should probably point out that I just said we should never assume anything) that Heather's gen ed seminar has a very specific role to play that other classes do not. Thus, if students haven't encountered similarly complex rhetorical situations before, that's neither surprising nor bad (all it suggests to me is that it's good that the gen ed seminar exists if we want students to engage in a kind of research and writing they don't get to do elsewhere). But it does present Heather with a particular kind of challenge which she, as a good teacher/researcher, is attempting to better understand and resolve. Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that we never *appear* to be attempting to locate a "lack" in other teachers, previous courses, is an important one for researchers to be aware of as we set up our studies and formulate our interview, survey, etc questions. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 09/25/2007 10:13 AM Please respond to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To cc Subject RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar <> This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers, those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening. But, after following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy bit is at the heart of things. The trick is at least twofold: cast articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the heart of learning pulses. (Other folds: rethink testing, value exploration and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.) Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his Last Lecture. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184 So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular, and much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular. That it ends with a bridge seems perfect. Articulation should be about bridges, not gates. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Kathy's right. My questions about what has happened elsewhere aren't blame questions. They are information-seeking questions. Note that I didn't say students *should* have encountered an equally complex rhetorical situation elsewhere; rather, I want to know whether they have. It would be a poor researcher indeed who went into a project acting on the unsubstantiated assumption that students couldn't do something because other teachers should have taught them to but didn't. Researchers need to question every assumption they have and find out what is going on and why it is going on.

One thing I have found really fascinating (but which was probably already as obvious as the day is long to everyone else) in my own study is that students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago, looking for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do the current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere. Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't *need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place.

I would assume (though someone should probably point out that I just said we should never assume anything) that Heather's gen ed seminar has a very specific role to play that other classes do not. Thus, if students haven't encountered similarly complex rhetorical situations before, that's neither surprising nor bad (all it suggests to me is that it's good that the gen ed seminar exists if we want students to engage in a kind of research and writing they don't get to do elsewhere). But it does present Heather with a particular kind of challenge which she, as a good teacher/researcher, is attempting to better understand and resolve.

Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that we never *appear* to be attempting to locate a "lack" in other teachers, previous courses, is an important one for researchers to be aware of as we set up our studies and formulate our interview, survey, etc questions.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu


"Kathy Fitch" <kfitch@kafkaz.net>
Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com

09/25/2007 10:13 AM
Please respond to
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
To
<teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com>
cc
Subject
RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar





<<This statement from Elizabeth gives me pause, though-- "Have students
really been taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that
you expect of them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds
complex, and my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else
like it." On the one hand we certainly want what students learn in different
contexts to be somehow linked or related, but on the other hand transfer, to
me, is in good part about what kernels (best word?) might be drawn upon in
new situations, re-employed, even when nothing like what someone did before
is being encountered.>>

This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because
it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers,
those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening.  But, after
following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy
bit is at the heart of things.  The trick is at least twofold:  cast
articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and
begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the
heart of learning pulses.  (Other folds:  rethink testing, value exploration
and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.)

Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in
which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening
number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his Last
Lecture.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184

So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular, and
much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as
transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular.  

That it ends with a bridge seems perfect.  Articulation should be about
bridges, not gates.

Kathy


_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition

To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information.
--=_alternative 005D775885257361_=-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 26 12:17:14 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:17:14 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To second Elizabeth on all of this, the question you raise about whether transfer occurs at all is at the heart of what your proposed study might explore--and the reviews of literature out there definitely indicate to me that we need many more studies in writing contexts in order to get at that question more specifically. Elizabeth says: "So perhaps that is one site where you can really dig in and see what happens before and after you teach those moves. I am not sure how you would distinguish what you do as teaching for transfer versus teaching something new, though. I guess that is why I think it would be useful to know exactly what students were writing and researching before. Regardless of whether you ever pinpoint this, if you find out that teaching certain moves helps students produce better writing, that will be a useful finding."--that would be a strong addition to the body of information on writing and transfer, partly because you might be able to trace ways in which teaching those moves connects to what students had learned in the past--builds on some conceptual part, for example, by making it explicit for your students. The literature suggests that this is one way to enable transfer. Tiane On 9/25/07 3:53 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" wrote: > Heather, > I just want to clarify that I wasn't questioning your assumptions as a > teacher; I was trying to generate possible questions the answers to which > might help you find the place to focus your study. > > Your question about whether transfer occurs at all is an interesting one. I > would like to answer it generally first, drawing on an overview from > Perkins and Salomon. And then I'd like to come back to the question of > transfer from FYC later, since it think that is a much more complicated > question. > > A lot of the transfer research does suggest that not much transfers within > school settings. Salomon and Perkins write: "...transfer is especially > important to learning theory and educational practice because very often > the kinds of transfer hoped for do not occur." In particular, "near > transfer seems to have much better prospects than far transfer." Yet they > go on to say that the important question is "under what conditions does > transfer appear?" And they have a big list of those conditions: > http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/traencyn.htm. And we have > another one on the Teaching Comp module. Salomon and Perkins note that "in > many situations, transfer will indeed take care of itself ─ > situations where the conditions of reflexive transfer are met more or less > automatically." In other situations, the conditions for transfer are far > less favorable, so we need to teach for it. And they provide some ways to > do that (I particularly like their discussion of hugging and bridging). > Salomon and Perkins end with this: > "In summary, a superficial look at how research on transfer casts its vote > is discouraging. The preponderance of studies suggest that transfer comes > hard. However, a closer examination of the conditions under which transfer > does and does not occur and the mechanisms at work presents a more positive > picture. Education can achieve abundant transfer if it is designed to do > so." > > This is why I think what is interesting about your study is that if you can > determine what sorts of research students have done before and which > rhetorical situations students have written for successfully before, you > might be able to see under what conditions the far transfer or > generalization you are looking for occurs. And it seems to me like you have > already pinpointed one answer: it occurs when you teach for it, in > particular, when you teach certain kinds of moves. So perhaps that is one > site where you can really dig in and see what happens before and after you > teach those moves. I am not sure how you would distinguish what you do as > teaching for transfer versus teaching something new, though. I guess that > is why I think it would be useful to know exactly what students were > writing and researching before. Regardless of whether you ever pinpoint > this, if you find out that teaching certain moves helps students produce > better writing, that will be a useful finding. > > > Elizabeth > > > > > Elizabeth Wardle, PhD > Assistant Professor > Director of Writing Programs > Internship Coordinator > Department of English > Humanities 277 > University of Dayton > Dayton, Ohio > 937-229-3003 > ewardle@udayton.edu > > -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > From: Heather Lettner-Rust > Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > Date: 09/24/2007 09:48PM > Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer > > Elizabeth and Rich, > > You have given me much to consider. > > After teaching FYC comp for a couple of years, I learned not to assume the > transfer of many skills from high school. > > Since teaching this senior course, I have learned not to assume that they > have done work like this. Once I spend much time explicitly teaching the > mental and "literate" moves around the subject, they do understand the > concepts 'around' rhetorical situations. > > But would it be fair then to say that not much transfers at all? Are we > saying (are you in your research finding) that there's not much that > transfers or is generalizable even with a rhet-based FYC? Our best bet is > Writing Studies to study and practice writing as a situated activity? > > Heather > > > Heather Lettner-Rust, Lecturer > English & Modern Languages Dept. > Longwood University > 201 High Street > Farmville, VA 23909 > > office: 204 Barlow > phone: 434.395.2178 > > > > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT) >> From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1268 - 4 msgs >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to >> teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing >> Seminar (Heather Lettner-Rust) >> 2. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing >> Seminar (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 1 >> From: Heather Lettner-Rust >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:37:54 -0400 (EDT) >> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed > Writing >> Seminar >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Hello all- >> >> I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. >> >> 1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to > undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach > by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also > re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them in > new situations. >> >> 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? >> >> My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the > general education public/civic writing seminar. >> >> Background: Its an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all > students through before graduation. >> Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix > and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition > requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were > done with English. Also, theyre too busy with their majors to want to > divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they dont find > community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. > Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained > them to do-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. >> >> But Id like to study why they have this difficulty. >> >> More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: >> >> 1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and > also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I find it? (In > particular, they dont seem to be able to conceive of an issue that doesnt > have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a > syllabus.) >> >> 2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in > terms of content, style, arrangement. >> >> Questions: >> I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who > require writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this > difficulty because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based > and also the timing of the course when they are supposed to be > developmentally more able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >> So, why are these difficulties so apparent? >> >> Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly > rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. >> >> Is it a developmental issue (Im thinking of Perrys scale here) >> >> >> 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? >> >> Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or > writing pieces in our course? >> >> Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to > chart their transformation? >> >> >> >> The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. >> >> Heather Lettner-Rust, >> doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >> Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >> Longwood University >> 201 High Street >> Farmville, VA 23909 >> >> office: 204 Barlow >> phone: 434.395.2178 >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 2 >> Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed > Writing >> Seminar >> From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:18:29 -0400 >> Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Hi Heather, >> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This will be fun! >> >> So the way I read your email is that you believe that students should have >> done things previously that would enable them to do the work in your >> seminar, but they aren't doing that work to your satisfaction. Is that a >> correct read on my part? >> >> If so, the first thing I would do is question your first assumption--that >> students have done things elsewhere that should enable them to > successfully >> complete the work in your course. Do you know this to be the case? How do >> you know? You specifically mention research--knowing how to find a gap, >> articulate an issue. What are students' previous experiences with research >> like this? Where have they specifically been taught to conduct such >> research? You also mention that students aren't writing in ways that are >> situationally appropriate. Again, I would want to know where else do >> students write in ways that address the kind of situation found in your >> seminar? >> >> My initial thinking is that before you can look for transfer, you need to >> ascertain whether, in fact, there is something to transfer (more >> accurately, I would say whether there is something for them to generalize, >> because it will change shape in your class). Have students really been >> taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that you expect > of >> them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds complex, and >> my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else like it. >> >> How do you find out whether they've encountered similar kinds of research >> and contexts previously? That's tricky. I don't think you can depend on >> students for the information; I am not sure that surveys of teachers would >> tell you, either, because you are looking for something in an assignment >> that is rhetorically complicated. One way might be to find out which prior >> classes assign research and extended writing and then collect assignments >> from those classes and interview the teachers about those assignments. > Even >> better would be to collect "good" responses to the assignments to see if >> the student papers do, in fact, exhibit the characteristics you are > looking >> for. >> >> If you discover that students have written/researched elsewhere in related >> ways that you think are transferable/generalizable, you might be able to >> explicitly draw in those experiences in class to encourage the transfer >> (they need to know, as Tuomi-Grohn and Engestrom say, that "the chair is >> sit-on-able"). >> >> If it turns out that students aren't doing much research and writing *of >> the kind you want* elsewhere, then there might not be much for them to >> transfer. In that case, you may find ways to teach what you want from them >> without expecting they should already be able to produce those things. >> >> This will make a great dissertation! >> >> Elizabeth >> >> Elizabeth Wardle, PhD >> Assistant Professor >> Director of Writing Programs >> Internship Coordinator >> Department of English >> Humanities 277 >> University of Dayton >> Dayton, Ohio >> 937-229-3003 >> ewardle@udayton.edu >> >> -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- >> >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> From: Heather Lettner-Rust >> Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> Date: 09/23/2007 10:37PM >> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed >> Writing Seminar >> >> Hello all- >> >> I thought I'd use Elizabeth's three questions and develop some thoughts. >> >> 1) What is my understanding of transfer? The ability of students to >> undertake a writing task with a contextual and convention-driven approach >> by producing some writing skills developed in other situations and also >> re-designing new skills to approach or approximate what is asked of them > in >> new situations. >> >> 2) What is the problem that's bothering me? What do I want to know? >> >> My problem is this: Very few students make an easy transition into the >> general education public/civic writing seminar. >> >> Background: Its an interdisciplinary capstone course that funnels all >> students through before graduation. >> Some possible explanations for their unease or resistance are the prefix >> and placement of this course in their academic career. This composition >> requirement is placed in their junior/senior year. They thought they were >> done with English. Also, theyre too busy with their majors to want to >> divert some attention to a general ed writing task. Or they dont find >> community in their peers being out of their major for a writing course. >> Finally, it could be they are practicing what the university has trained >> them to do-import and apply, till you are asked explicitly to change. >> >> But Id like to study why they have this difficulty. >> >> More specifically, here are some of the problems students exhibit: >> >> 1) difficulty articulating a researchable issue from the public sphere and >> also researching it--what is an issue? Where do I find it? (In >> particular, they dont seem to be able to conceive of an issue that > doesnt >> have boundaries captured in a scholarly journal or derived from a >> syllabus.) >> >> 2) difficulty developing writing that is situationally-appropriate in > terms >> of content, style, arrangement. >> >> Questions: >> I know these are some of the same questions that other teachers who > require >> writing face but I think this course has a unique angle on this difficulty >> because of the civic, public issues on which the course is based and also >> the timing of the course when they are supposed to be developmentally more >> able to handle conceptual tasks (Perry). >> So, why are these difficulties so apparent? >> >> Is it a lack of knowledge about rhetoric? Our FYC is not explicitly >> rhetoric-based and has multiple variations, many which are lit-based. >> >> Is it a developmental issue (Im thinking of Perrys scale here) >> >> >> 3) What methods might shed some light on this problem? >> >> Should I interview students about collected sample assignments and/or >> writing pieces in our course? >> >> Should I interview some before we start the work of the course and try to >> chart their transformation? >> >> >> >> The these questions are the beginning of a dissertation for me. >> >> Heather Lettner-Rust, >> doctoral student in Rhetoric & Textual Studies, ODU >> Lecturer, English & Modern Languages Dept. >> Longwood University >> 201 High Street >> Farmville, VA 23909 >> >> office: 204 Barlow >> phone: 434.395.2178 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> To unsubscribe, please visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update >> your information. >> >> >> >> --__--__-- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> >> >> End of Teaching_Composition Digest > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update > your information. > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Wed Sep 26 12:33:10 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Christiane Donahue) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:33:10 +0200 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you very much for the resources and these comments, Rich--this is incredibly helpful thinking, to all of us working in this area. And these issues are part of why 1) research is such an exciting and complicated thing to do and 2) we need far more exchange and conversation among people carrying out research projects, about our methods and tentative results and challenges, especially after the many years the field as a whole was less involved in this kind of work. Thanks, Tiane On 9/25/07 4:31 PM, "Richard Haswell" wrote: > Tiane's term "re-employ" is crucial. All the major post-adolescent > developmental studies since William Perry have stressed the notion, although > it goes under a variety of names. The most wide-spread are "qualitative" and > "transformative." Underlying frames or perspectives change, which change > then transforms all kinds of overlying skills and knowledge. So during the > third year of college a student's concept of work changes, in part because > the student decides on a professional major in architecture. That may alter > the way the student employs writing skills learned or reinforced in English > 101. Perhaps concrete specifics which the student has employed to make > scenes in a personal literacy narrative "credible to the reader" and thereby > to please the teacher are now re-employed to match the style the student > finds in architectural publications and to make the student's writing "look > professional." > > How would you research Tiane's phenomenon of "re-employment"? A crucial bind > (crucial = crux) is the fact that the student may be unaware of the change. > Developmentalists have long wrestled with the question of why people > remember so little of the major transformative changes that > developmentalists think they can document. One answer is that a people's > metaconscious ability to reflect on their current intellectual frames also > change; the means to understand a previous developmental position are lost > along with the developmental position. You can't just ask students about how > they are transferring writing skills/knowledge. Certainly when they can't > come up with an answer, you can't assume no transfer has taken place. > > If so, then the research method must use some kind of triangulation. A basic > triangulation, often used, would consist of three angles: the student's > understandings (interview), the researcher's insights (reflection), and the > student's writings (text-analysis). The three can interact, of course. The > researcher might notice the change of purpose and context with concrete > detail in the student's first-year and third-year writings and ask the > student about it. But plenty of other perspectives can be applied, with good > promise. > > Since so much of both composing and of skill-transfer is unconscious, I > can't think of any research approach that would not use some form of > triangulation. > > On developmental transformative change, a good take is Jack Mezirow et > al.(Eds.), Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in > Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000, especially his leading > contribution, "Critical reflection triggers transformative learning," pp. > 1-20) > > Rich > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your > information. From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 28 00:08:00 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (Sara Guerin) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1271 - 6 msgs In-Reply-To: <200709261132.l8QBWJj4023635@localhost.eppg.com> Message-ID: <157855.67877.qm@web55908.mail.re3.yahoo.com> --0-2054463729-1190934480=:67877 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Elizabeth-- I often find myself wondering how (some) students can move forward when they haven't mastered the skills taught in previous classes, so I'm curious about your comment that "students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc." Can this be true? Do you have an example that might illustrate your point? Sara teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com wrote: Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com You can reach the person managing the list at teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) 2. Re: teasing out the assumptions about transfer (Christiane Donahue) 3. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar (Christiane Donahue) --__--__-- Message: 1 To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:00:46 -0400 Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Kathy's right. My questions about what has happened elsewhere aren't blame questions. They are information-seeking questions. Note that I didn't say students *should* have encountered an equally complex rhetorical situation elsewhere; rather, I want to know whether they have. It would be a poor researcher indeed who went into a project acting on the unsubstantiated assumption that students couldn't do something because other teachers should have taught them to but didn't. Researchers need to question every assumption they have and find out what is going on and why it is going on. One thing I have found really fascinating (but which was probably already as obvious as the day is long to everyone else) in my own study is that students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago, looking for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do the current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere. Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't *need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place. I would assume (though someone should probably point out that I just said we should never assume anything) that Heather's gen ed seminar has a very specific role to play that other classes do not. Thus, if students haven't encountered similarly complex rhetorical situations before, that's neither surprising nor bad (all it suggests to me is that it's good that the gen ed seminar exists if we want students to engage in a kind of research and writing they don't get to do elsewhere). But it does present Heather with a particular kind of challenge which she, as a good teacher/researcher, is attempting to better understand and resolve. Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that we never *appear* to be attempting to locate a "lack" in other teachers, previous courses, is an important one for researchers to be aware of as we set up our studies and formulate our interview, survey, etc questions. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 09/25/2007 10:13 AM Please respond to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To cc Subject RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar > This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers, those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening. But, after following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy bit is at the heart of things. The trick is at least twofold: cast articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the heart of learning pulses. (Other folds: rethink testing, value exploration and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.) Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his Last Lecture. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184 So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular, and much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular. That it ends with a bridge seems perfect. Articulation should be about bridges, not gates. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Kathy's right. My questions about what has happened elsewhere aren't blame questions. They are information-seeking questions. Note that I didn't say students *should* have encountered an equally complex rhetorical situation elsewhere; rather, I want to know whether they have. It would be a poor researcher indeed who went into a project acting on the unsubstantiated assumption that students couldn't do something because other teachers should have taught them to but didn't. Researchers need to question every assumption they have and find out what is going on and why it is going on. One thing I have found really fascinating (but which was probably already as obvious as the day is long to everyone else) in my own study is that students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago, looking for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do the current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere. Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't *need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place. I would assume (though someone should probably point out that I just said we should never assume anything) that Heather's gen ed seminar has a very specific role to play that other classes do not. Thus, if students haven't encountered similarly complex rhetorical situations before, that's neither surprising nor bad (all it suggests to me is that it's good that the gen ed seminar exists if we want students to engage in a kind of research and writing they don't get to do elsewhere). But it does present Heather with a particular kind of challenge which she, as a good teacher/researcher, is attempting to better understand and resolve. Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that we never *appear* to be attempting to locate a "lack" in other teachers, previous courses, is an important one for researchers to be aware of as we set up our studies and formulate our interview, survey, etc questions. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 09/25/2007 10:13 AM Please respond to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To cc Subject RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar <> This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers, those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening. But, after following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy bit is at the heart of things. The trick is at least twofold: cast articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the heart of learning pulses. (Other folds: rethink testing, value exploration and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.) Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his Last Lecture. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184 So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular, and much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular. That it ends with a bridge seems perfect. Articulation should be about bridges, not gates. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_=-- --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:17:14 +0200 Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer From: Christiane Donahue To: Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To second Elizabeth on all of this, the question you raise about whether transfer occurs at all is at the heart of what your proposed study might explore--and the reviews of literature out there definitely indicate to me that we need many more studies in writing contexts in order to get at that question more specifically. Elizabeth says: "So perhaps that is one site where you can really dig in and see what happens before and after you teach those moves. I am not sure how you would distinguish what you do as teaching for transfer versus teaching something new, though. I guess that is why I think it would be useful to know exactly what students were writing and researching before. Regardless of whether you ever pinpoint this, if you find out that teaching certain moves helps students produce better writing, that will be a useful finding."--that would be a strong addition to the body of information on writing and transfer, partly because you might be able to trace ways in which teaching those moves connects to what students had learned in the past--builds on some conceptual part, for example, by making it explicit for your students. The literature suggests that this is one way to enable transfer. Tiane On 9/25/07 3:53 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu" wrote: > Heather, > I just want to clarify that I wasn't questioning your assumptions as a > teacher; I was trying to generate possible questions the answers to which > might help you find the place to focus your study. > > Your question about whether transfer occurs at all is an interesting one. I > would like to answer it generally first, drawing on an overview from > Perkins and Salomon. And then I'd like to come back to the question of > transfer from FYC later, since it think that is a much more complicated > question. > > A lot of the transfer research does suggest that not much transfers within > school settings. Salomon and Perkins write: "...transfer is especially > important to learning theory and educational practice because very often > the kinds of transfer hoped for do not occur." In particular, "near > transfer seems to have much better prospects than far transfer." Yet they > go on to say that the important question is "under what conditions does > transfer appear?" And they have a big list of those conditions: > http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/traencyn.htm. And we have > another one on the Teaching Comp module. Salomon and Perkins note that "in > many situations, transfer will indeed take care of itself > situations where the conditions of reflexive transfer are met more or less > automatically." In other situations, the conditions for transfer are far > less favorable, so we need to teach for it. And they provide some ways to > do that (I particularly like their discussion of hugging and bridging). > Salomon and Perkins end with this: > "In summary, a superficial look at how research on transfer casts its vote > is discouraging. The preponderance of studies suggest that transfer comes > hard. However, a closer examination of the conditions under which transfer > does and does not occur and the mechanisms at work presents a more positive > picture. Education can achieve abundant transfer if it is designed to do > so." > > This is why I think what is interesting about your study is that if you can > determine what sorts of research students have done before and which > rhetorical situations students have written for successfully before, you > might be able to see under what conditions the far transfer or > generalization you are looking for occurs. And it seems to me like you have > already pinpointed one answer: it occurs when you teach for it, in > particular, when you teach certain kinds of moves. So perhaps that is one > site where you can really dig in and see what happens before and after you > teach those moves. I am not sure how you would distinguish what you do as > teaching for transfer versus teaching something new, though. I guess that > is why I think it would be useful to know exactly what students were > writing and researching before. Regardless of whether you ever pinpoint > this, if you find out that teaching certain moves helps students produce > better writing, that will be a useful finding. > > > Elizabeth > > > > > Elizabeth Wardle, PhD > Assistant Professor > Director of Writing Programs > Internship Coordinator > Department of English > Humanities 277 > University of Dayton > Dayton, Ohio > 937-229-3003 > ewardle@udayton.edu > > -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- > > To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com > From: Heather Lettner-Rust > Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com > Date: 09/24/2007 09:48PM > Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer > > Elizabeth and Rich, > > You have given me much to consider. > > After teaching FYC comp for a couple of years, I learned not to assume the > transfer of many skills from high school. > > Since teaching this senior course, I have learned not to assume that they > have done work like this. Once I spend much time explicitly teaching the > mental and "literate" moves around the subject, they do understand the > concepts 'around' rhetorical situations. > > But would it be fair then to say that not much transfers at all? Are we > saying (are you in your research finding) that there's not much that > transfers or is generalizable even with a rhet-based FYC? Our best bet is > Writing Studies to study and practice writing as a situated activity? > > Heather > > > Heather Lettner-Rust, Lecturer > English & Modern Languages Dept. > Longwood University > 201 High Street > Farmville, VA 23909 > > office: 204 Barlow > phone: 434.395.2178 > > > > ---- Original message ---- >> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT) >> From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1268 - 4 msgs >> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to >> teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing >> Seminar (Heather Lettner-Rust) >> 2. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing === message truncated === --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. --0-2054463729-1190934480=:67877 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Elizabeth--
 
I often find myself wondering how (some) students can move forward when they haven't mastered the skills taught in previous classes, so I'm curious about your comment that "students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc."  Can this be true?  Do you have an example that might illustrate your point? 
 
Sara

teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com wrote:
Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. RE: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing
Seminar (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu)
2. Re: teasing out the assumptions about
transfer (Christiane Donahue)
3. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed
Writing Seminar (Christiane Donahue)

--__--__--

Message: 1
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing
Seminar
From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:00:46 -0400
Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 005D775885257361_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Kathy's right. My questions about what has happened elsewhere aren't blame
questions. They are information-seeking questions. Note that I didn't say
students *should* have encountered an equally complex rhetorical situation
elsewhere; rather, I want to know whether they have. It would be a poor
researcher indeed who went into a project acting on the unsubstantiated
assumption that students couldn't do something because other teachers
should have taught them to but didn't. Researchers need to question every
assumption they have and find out what is going on and why it is going on.


One thing I have found really fascinating (but which was probably already
as obvious as the day is long to everyone else) in my own study is that
students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill
the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into
a discourse community--all without having to do very complex
generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to
transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor bad, it
just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago, looking
for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do the
current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere.
Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't
*need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy
grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother
to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place.

I would assume (though someone should probably point out that I just said
we should never assume anything) that Heather's gen ed seminar has a very
specific role to play that other classes do not. Thus, if students haven't
encountered similarly complex rhetorical situations before, that's neither
surprising nor bad (all it suggests to me is that it's good that the gen
ed seminar exists if we want students to engage in a kind of research and
writing they don't get to do elsewhere). But it does present Heather with
a particular kind of challenge which she, as a good teacher/researcher, is
attempting to better understand and resolve.

Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that we never *appear* to be attempting
to locate a "lack" in other teachers, previous courses, is an important
one for researchers to be aware of as we set up our studies and formulate
our interview, survey, etc questions.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
Assistant Professor
Director of Writing Programs
Internship Coordinator
Department of English
Humanities 277
University of Dayton
Dayton, Ohio
937-229-3003
ewardle@udayton.edu



"Kathy Fitch"
Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
09/25/2007 10:13 AM
Please respond to
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com


To

cc

Subject
RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing
Seminar






<different
contexts to be somehow linked or related, but on the other hand transfer,
to
me, is in good part about what kernels (best word?) might be drawn upon in
new situations, re-employed, even when nothing like what someone did
before
is being encountered.>>

This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well,
because
it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers,
those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening. But, after
following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this
pause-worthy
bit is at the heart of things. The trick is at least twofold: cast
articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and
begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the
heart of learning pulses. (Other folds: rethink testing, value
exploration
and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.)

Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in
which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening
number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his
Last
Lecture.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184

So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular,
and
much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as
transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular.

That it ends with a bridge seems perfect. Articulation should be about
bridges, not gates.

Kathy


_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition

To unsubscribe, please visit
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update
your information.


--=_alternative 005D775885257361_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"



Kathy's right. My questions about what
has happened elsewhere aren't blame questions. They are information-seeking
questions. Note that I didn't say students *should* have encountered an
equally complex rhetorical situation elsewhere; rather, I want to know
whether they have. It would be a poor researcher indeed who went into a
project acting on the unsubstantiated assumption that students couldn't
do something because other teachers should have taught them to but didn't.
Researchers need to question every assumption they have and find out what
is going on and why it is going on.



One thing I have found really fascinating
(but which was probably already as obvious as the day is long to everyone
else) in my own study is that students can sometimes learn a lot in a course,
be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment,
and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very
complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't
need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor
bad, it just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago,
looking for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do
the current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere.
Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't
*need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy
grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother
to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place.



I would assume (though someone should
probably point out that I just said we should never assume anything) that
Heather's gen ed seminar has a very specific role to play that other classes
do not. Thus, if students haven't encountered similarly complex rhetorical
situations before, that's neither surprising nor bad (all it suggests to
me is that it's good that the gen ed seminar exists if we want students
to engage in a kind of research and writing they don't get to do elsewhere).
But it does present Heather with a particular kind of challenge which she,
as a good teacher/researcher, is attempting to better understand and resolve.



Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that
we never *appear* to be attempting to locate a "lack" in other
teachers, previous courses, is an important one for researchers to be aware
of as we set up our studies and formulate our interview, survey, etc questions.




Elizabeth



Elizabeth Wardle, PhD

Assistant Professor

Director of Writing Programs

Internship Coordinator

Department of English

Humanities 277

University of Dayton

Dayton, Ohio

937-229-3003

ewardle@udayton.edu








"Kathy Fitch"
<kfitch@kafkaz.net>

Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
09/25/2007 10:13 AM



Please respond to

teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com









To

<teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com>

cc



Subject

RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study
transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar














<<This statement from Elizabeth gives me pause,
though-- "Have students

really been taught elsewhere to do the kinds of research and writing that

you expect of them? The rhetorical situation of your writing seminar sounds

complex, and my guess would be that students don't encounter anything else

like it." On the one hand we certainly want what students learn in
different

contexts to be somehow linked or related, but on the other hand transfer,
to

me, is in good part about what kernels (best word?) might be drawn upon
in

new situations, re-employed, even when nothing like what someone did before

is being encountered.>>



This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because

it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers,

those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening.  But,
after

following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy

bit is at the heart of things.  The trick is at least twofold:  cast

articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and

begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the

heart of learning pulses.  (Other folds:  rethink testing, value
exploration

and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.)



Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways
in

which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening

number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his
Last

Lecture.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184



So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular,
and

much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as

transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular.  



That it ends with a bridge seems perfect.  Articulation should be
about

bridges, not gates.



Kathy





_______________________________________________

Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com

http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition



To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition
and update your information.




--=_alternative 005D775885257361_=--

--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:17:14 +0200
Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about
transfer
From: Christiane Donahue
To:
Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com

To second Elizabeth on all of this, the question you raise about whether
transfer occurs at all is at the heart of what your proposed study might
explore--and the reviews of literature out there definitely indicate to me
that we need many more studies in writing contexts in order to get at that
question more specifically.

Elizabeth says: "So perhaps that is one site where you can really dig in and
see what happens before and after you teach those moves. I am not sure how
you would distinguish what you do as teaching for transfer versus teaching
something new, though. I guess that is why I think it would be useful to
know exactly what students were writing and researching before. Regardless
of whether you ever pinpoint this, if you find out that teaching certain
moves helps students produce better writing, that will be a useful
finding."--that would be a strong addition to the body of information on
writing and transfer, partly because you might be able to trace ways in
which teaching those moves connects to what students had learned in the
past--builds on some conceptual part, for example, by making it explicit for
your students. The literature suggests that this is one way to enable
transfer.

Tiane

On 9/25/07 3:53 PM, "Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu"
wrote:

> Heather,
> I just want to clarify that I wasn't questioning your assumptions as a
> teacher; I was trying to generate possible questions the answers to which
> might help you find the place to focus your study.
>
> Your question about whether transfer occurs at all is an interesting one. I
> would like to answer it generally first, drawing on an overview from
> Perkins and Salomon. And then I'd like to come back to the question of
> transfer from FYC later, since it think that is a much more complicated
> question.
>
> A lot of the transfer research does suggest that not much transfers within
> school settings. Salomon and Perkins write: "...transfer is especially
> important to learning theory and educational practice because very often
> the kinds of transfer hoped for do not occur." In particular, "near
> transfer seems to have much better prospects than far transfer." Yet they
> go on to say that the important question is "under what conditions does
> transfer appear?" And they have a big list of those conditions:
> http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/traencyn.htm. And we have
> another one on the Teaching Comp module. Salomon and Perkins note that "in
> many situations, transfer will indeed take care of itself
> situations where the conditions of reflexive transfer are met more or less
> automatically." In other situations, the conditions for transfer are far
> less favorable, so we need to teach for it. And they provide some ways to
> do that (I particularly like their discussion of hugging and bridging).
> Salomon and Perkins end with this:
> "In summary, a superficial look at how research on transfer casts its vote
> is discouraging. The preponderance of studies suggest that transfer comes
> hard. However, a closer examination of the conditions under which transfer
> does and does not occur and the mechanisms at work presents a more positive
> picture. Education can achieve abundant transfer if it is designed to do
> so."
>
> This is why I think what is interesting about your study is that if you can
> determine what sorts of research students have done before and which
> rhetorical situations students have written for successfully before, you
> might be able to see under what conditions the far transfer or
> generalization you are looking for occurs. And it seems to me like you have
> already pinpointed one answer: it occurs when you teach for it, in
> particular, when you teach certain kinds of moves. So perhaps that is one
> site where you can really dig in and see what happens before and after you
> teach those moves. I am not sure how you would distinguish what you do as
> teaching for transfer versus teaching something new, though. I guess that
> is why I think it would be useful to know exactly what students were
> writing and researching before. Regardless of whether you ever pinpoint
> this, if you find out that teaching certain moves helps students produce
> better writing, that will be a useful finding.
>
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Wardle, PhD
> Assistant Professor
> Director of Writing Programs
> Internship Coordinator
> Department of English
> Humanities 277
> University of Dayton
> Dayton, Ohio
> 937-229-3003
> ewardle@udayton.edu
>
> -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: -----
>
> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
> From: Heather Lettner-Rust
> Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
> Date: 09/24/2007 09:48PM
> Subject: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer
>
> Elizabeth and Rich,
>
> You have given me much to consider.
>
> After teaching FYC comp for a couple of years, I learned not to assume the
> transfer of many skills from high school.
>
> Since teaching this senior course, I have learned not to assume that they
> have done work like this. Once I spend much time explicitly teaching the
> mental and "literate" moves around the subject, they do understand the
> concepts 'around' rhetorical situations.
>
> But would it be fair then to say that not much transfers at all? Are we
> saying (are you in your research finding) that there's not much that
> transfers or is generalizable even with a rhet-based FYC? Our best bet is
> Writing Studies to study and practice writing as a situated activity?
>
> Heather
>
>
> Heather Lettner-Rust, Lecturer
> English & Modern Languages Dept.
> Longwood University
> 201 High Street
> Farmville, VA 23909
>
> office: 204 Barlow
> phone: 434.395.2178
>
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:01:01 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com
>> Subject: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1268 - 4 msgs
>> To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
>>
>> Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to
>> teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing
>> Seminar (Heather Lettner-Rust)
>> 2. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing

=== message truncated ===

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. --0-2054463729-1190934480=:67877-- From teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Fri Sep 28 00:46:43 2007 From: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com (teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:46:43 -0400 Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1271 - 6 msgs Message-ID: Yes, here's an example. One student had an assignment to re-imagine the course of history without a particular event; others had some assignment from genetics that I think asked them to imagine an animal with a different genetic makeup (I can't remember the exact assignment offhand, it was something oddly creative like that). In both cases the students said they learned a lot, got thinking, and were engaged in the class--but the writing wasn't particularly challenging. They did not have to explicitly consider the writing task; they were thinking through the concepts from the course. So they fulfilled the requirements of the task, learned what they needed to learn, got engaged, enjoyed the class, went on to take other classes in the discipline--and did not have to do any very complex generalizations related to writing. (I'm sure they were doing a lot of generalization related to the concepts and ideas of the course, just not much generalization related to writing in any way that was apparent to me). Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu -----teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com wrote: ----- To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com From: Sara Guerin Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com Date: 09/27/2007 07:08PM Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1271 - 6 msgs Elizabeth-- I often find myself wondering how (some) students can move forward when they haven't mastered the skills taught in previous classes, so I'm curious about your comment that "students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc." Can this be true? Do you have an example that might illustrate your point? Sara teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com wrote: Send Teaching_Composition mailing list submissions to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to teaching_composition-request@mailman.eppg.com You can reach the person managing the list at teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Teaching_Composition digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar (Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu) 2. Re: teasing out the assumptions about transfer (Christiane Donahue) 3. Re: How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar (Christiane Donahue) --__--__-- Message: 1 To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com Subject: RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar From: Elizabeth.Wardle@notes.udayton.edu Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:00:46 -0400 Reply-To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Kathy's right. My questions about what has happened elsewhere aren't blame questions. They are information-seeking questions. Note that I didn't say students *should* have encountered an equally complex rhetorical situation elsewhere; rather, I want to know whether they have. It would be a poor researcher indeed who went into a project acting on the unsubstantiated assumption that students couldn't do something because other teachers should have taught them to but didn't. Researchers need to question every assumption they have and find out what is going on and why it is going on. One thing I have found really fascinating (but which was probably already as obvious as the day is long to everyone else) in my own study is that students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago, looking for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do the current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere. Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't *need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place. I would assume (though someone should probably point out that I just said we should never assume anything) that Heather's gen ed seminar has a very specific role to play that other classes do not. Thus, if students haven't encountered similarly complex rhetorical situations before, that's neither surprising nor bad (all it suggests to me is that it's good that the gen ed seminar exists if we want students to engage in a kind of research and writing they don't get to do elsewhere). But it does present Heather with a particular kind of challenge which she, as a good teacher/researcher, is attempting to better understand and resolve. Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that we never *appear* to be attempting to locate a "lack" in other teachers, previous courses, is an important one for researchers to be aware of as we set up our studies and formulate our interview, survey, etc questions. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu "Kathy Fitch" different contexts to be somehow linked or related, but on the other hand transfer, to me, is in good part about what kernels (best word?) might be drawn upon in new situations, re-employed, even when nothing like what someone did before is being encountered.>> This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers, those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening. But, after following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy bit is at the heart of things. The trick is at least twofold: cast articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the heart of learning pulses. (Other folds: rethink testing, value exploration and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.) Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his Last Lecture. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184 So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular, and much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular. That it ends with a bridge seems perfect. Articulation should be about bridges, not gates. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Kathy's right. My questions about what has happened elsewhere aren't blame questions. They are information-seeking questions. Note that I didn't say students *should* have encountered an equally complex rhetorical situation elsewhere; rather, I want to know whether they have. It would be a poor researcher indeed who went into a project acting on the unsubstantiated assumption that students couldn't do something because other teachers should have taught them to but didn't. Researchers need to question every assumption they have and find out what is going on and why it is going on. One thing I have found really fascinating (but which was probably already as obvious as the day is long to everyone else) in my own study is that students can sometimes learn a lot in a course, be really engaged, fulfill the rhetorical requirements of a writing assignment, and move further into a discourse community--all without having to do very complex generalization of previous writing tasks. They sometimes don't need to transfer, generalize, re-employ, etc. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. And in this case, as Kathy reminded us many posts ago, looking for transfer isn't helpful. If they don't need to transfer to do the current task, then looking for transfer is not going to get you anywhere. Finding that no transfer occurs but failing to note that transfer didn't *need* to occur is a move that seems to make "transfer" the holy grail--we'll search and search for it and never find it and never bother to note that we didn't need to find it in the first place. I would assume (though someone should probably point out that I just said we should never assume anything) that Heather's gen ed seminar has a very specific role to play that other classes do not. Thus, if students haven't encountered similarly complex rhetorical situations before, that's neither surprising nor bad (all it suggests to me is that it's good that the gen ed seminar exists if we want students to engage in a kind of research and writing they don't get to do elsewhere). But it does present Heather with a particular kind of challenge which she, as a good teacher/researcher, is attempting to better understand and resolve. Yet....Kathy and Tiane's concern that we never *appear* to be attempting to locate a "lack" in other teachers, previous courses, is an important one for researchers to be aware of as we set up our studies and formulate our interview, survey, etc questions. Elizabeth Elizabeth Wardle, PhD Assistant Professor Director of Writing Programs Internship Coordinator Department of English Humanities 277 University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 937-229-3003 ewardle@udayton.edu "Kathy Fitch" Sent by: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com 09/25/2007 10:13 AM Please respond to teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com To cc Subject RE: [Teaching_Composition] How to study transfer in Senior Gen Ed Writing Seminar <> This was the kind of argument that gave me pause, at first, as well, because it seemed to be edging up on locating the lack in those other teachers, those other courses, where the right stuff isn't happening. But, after following along with the discussion, I think in many ways this pause-worthy bit is at the heart of things. The trick is at least twofold: cast articulation as something other than identifying and rectifying lack, and begin to see the cross-curricular and the interdisciplinary as where the heart of learning pulses. (Other folds: rethink testing, value exploration and mess, emphasize relationships, and so many more.) Pondering the creative aspects of learning, and its joys (and the ways in which school both makes it possible and puts a sometimes disheartening number brick walls in the way), I happened across Randy Pausch and his Last Lecture. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184 So much of what he identifies as crucial is inherently cross-curricular, and much of it might even be construed as anti-curricular, or at least as transcending (or thumbing one's nose at) the curricular. That it ends with a bridge seems perfect. Articulation should be about bridges, not gates. Kathy _______________________________________________ Teaching_Composition maillist - Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition To unsubscribe, please visit http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update your information. --=_alternative 005D775885257361_=-- --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:17:14 +0200 Subject: Re: [Teaching_Composition] teasing out the assumptions about transfer From: Christiane Donahue Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.