PAB 4b

Pop Warner
The focus of Martin’s review was Pop Warner, but what he was not prepared for was the community of discourse this review needed to inhabit.

Much of the discussion about transfer focuses on beginning writers working to improve, especially in the academic setting.  For example, we might examine transfer as it pertains to a FYC student, her writing skills developed in informal situations such as social media, and how awareness of audience there might help her develop awareness of audience in the academic setting.  Anson (2016), on the other hand, documented a different perspective of transfer as evidenced by Martin, a college professor, and his struggle to write a weekly recap of his son’s Pop Warner football games.    While his writing for work was often highly successful in multiple genres and modes, which exemplified his ability to write well in various situations and often at the highest levels of academics, the new task of writing a simple review posed a significant challenge.  Anson (2016) stated, “Clearly, Martin’s summaries demonstrated a high level of writing competence independent of their context: the resources of a sophisticated vocabulary, expert control of syntax, a penchant for smart phrasing, organizational skills, rhetorical savvy, impeccable grammar. But in this context, such ability was beside the point: writing is deemed successful by the standards of a particular community of practice or group of readers” (p.531).  The definition of “writing expertise” is localized to particular discourses, and Martin struggled with a far more simplistic discourse than he was accustomed.  Using Beaufort’s (2007) framework of writing expertise, Anson (2016) breaks down Martin’s “expertise” in five areas and discussed where it did or did not overlap in the unfamiliar context, essentially explaining why he struggled to transfer his prior skills and knowledge to a rather simple task.

 

While Anson’s (2016) study does not focus on Basic or first-year writers, which will probably be who I choose to follow in my research, I found his article to be quite informative of how transfer is not necessarily difficult because of the novice status of writers.  Any writer can feel comfortable and entrenched in a certain discourse, no matter their awareness of the rhetorical situation or their writing abilities.  I have noticed the trend for researchers to focus on transfer at the introductory level, largely because the students are learning something new, but understanding the struggle to be more universal and less limited gives more insight to where transfer can and does exist.

Community of Practice
Martin struggled in a new Community of Practice context, which can be true for any level of writer.

The primary difficulty in Martin’s case was the community of practice, not his ability to write, which is true for many.  Anson (2016) commented that there is increasing “scholarship [looking] to explore how writers conceptualize transient, overlapping, unstable communities. And it is just starting to account for the degree of unity and fragmentation within such communities and the extent to which their actors are situated within multiply configured spaces, each with its own shared assumptions and knowledge. (p. 537).  I have often perceived the academic classroom as a more stable environment with clear expectations laid out for student writing; however, perhaps I should revisit this view.  Is the classroom environment stable with familiar and easy to read structures, especially as the students bring knowledge of K-12 academic settings to the university atmosphere? Or is there a degree of negative transfer that occurs because the students perceive the community of practice to be more unstable?

 

This case study not only examines transfer, but it provides me with some ideas of more OoSes I might use.  In addition, the perception of why students struggle with transfer is more about context than what might have been apparent before.

References

Anson, C. M. (2016). The Pop Warner Chronicles: A Case Study in Contextual Adaptation and the Transfer of Writing Ability. College Composition and Communication, 67(4), 518-549. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1798722905?accountid=12085

Beaufort, Anne. (2007).  College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State UP.

PAB 4a

Transfer theory, though not new, remains a current discussion in Rhetoric and Composition, especially with ESL, first year, and basic writers.  In their article, DePalma and Ringer (2011) discussed transfer theory in the ESL context but argued for a new conceptualization of transfer.  They termed it “adaptive transfer,” one that is “the conscious or intuitive process of applying or reshaping learned writing knowledge in order to help students negotiate new and potentially unfamiliar writing situations” (DePalma and Ringer, 2011, p.135).  They identified most transfer theories as focusing on a “reuse” of “static” skills and knowledge, moving from one context to another without any real change apart from the environment itself, which is too reductive, a similar argument Kincheloe (2006) made about traditionalist views of pedagogy and research in the classroom.  The static view removes the writer authority; whatever changes or adaptations the writer makes in the process of transfer are not recognized, which leads to the other problem of static view, which is reader context.  The cultural discourse of the person(s) determining whether transfer occurred often do not reflect the native discourse of the writer; thus, this essentially narrows the reader’s view of how the writer may have transferred knowledge or skills from one context to the other.  Essentially, DePalma and Ringer (2011) argued that the focus of transfer theory needs to shift from what “doesn’t happen to what does happen” (p.141).

Adapt or Fail
Reductive transfer theories focus more on what is not happening while adaptive transfer looks at what does.

I agree with Depalma and Ringer’s (2011) argument against the more reductive transfer theories that many scholars have used in their research and methodologies.  This approach often leads to an overly simplified examination of a text as indicative of successful transfer or not while ignoring the process of how that text came to be.  Their “adaptive transfer theory” aligns more with the constructivist views I discussed in the Epistemological Paper, giving more weight to the outside factors that contribute to rhetorical choices made by students in the formation of texts.  Yet, while their article puts more focus on L2 writers, the theory can easily apply to Basic Writers, who share the difficulties in navigating new environments (academic) with L2 students.  By extrapolating the premise of the theory, I can solidify what my objects of study might be in future research.

 

The popularity of transfer theory is not surprising because of the growing number of technological advancements in addition to greater recognition of disparities between student backgrounds.  One remark made by DePalma and Ringer (2011) that resonated with me is “texts become spaces of negotiation” rather than stable (p. 142).  This encapsulates the purpose of using adaptive transfer theory when conducting case studies because of the importance to recognize how writers negotiate the situation, bring some knowledge and skills from previous writing contexts influenced by various political, social, and cultural factors, to a new setting that also includes its own varying factors of influence.   Too often we have viewed texts as disconnected from writer and reader, missing the complexity of the formation and interpretation of such it.  While it might contain evidence of transfer, it does not necessarily mean it is objectively present at the surface; it might require a little more digging.

Limiting Transfer
Limiting successful transfer to reductive criteria will also limit our understanding of it.

While this article is more theoretical than evidence of methodology in practice, it provides a framework of how I can interpret other case studies and the types of transfer they use when producing data.

References

DePalma, J. & J. Ringer. (2011).  Toward a Theory of Adaptive Transfer: Expanding Disciplinary Discussions of “Transfer” in Second-language Writing and Composition Studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 134-147.  Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.003

Kincheloe, J. (2011). A Critical Complex Epistemology of Practice. Counterpoints, 352, 219-230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42980820