|
|
|
Nelms-March 2005‹ Nelms-September 2003 | List of WPA-L Exchanges | WPA-L November 2005 › Jerry Nelm’s discussion of knowledge transfer and writing assignments / sequences, from March 28, 2005: [Snip paragraph referring to resources discussed in 2003 messages.] In terms of introducing KT into our pedagogical planning, we face problems similar to introducing creativity into that planning. First, we have to realize that we inhabit a space where different pedagogical forces are vying for dominance. Coverage and motivation have been the two most dominant forces I’ve noted, although politico-cultural awareness and critical thinking (primarily in the form of analytical critique) have also been prominent. Understanding what drives our thinking about FYC is crucial, because research in these areas suggests that they don’t automatically blend well together. For example, research suggests that specifying and contextualizing assignments can forcefully enhance motivation. That’s why active learning strategies (e.g., problem-based learning; service learning) are so pedagogically powerful. On the other hand, KT research strongly suggests that abstraction and generalization (decontextualizing) is needed for what’s called “far transfer” to occur-that is, transfer across contextual boundaries, such as from FYC to other writing situations in non-composition courses. Second, a major problem that I perceive with much composition instruction is the focus on large assignments (e.g., the comparison/contrast paper; the report; the argumentative essay). Numerous cognitive skills are needed to fulfill these large assignments, but little is said about sequencing smaller assignments to build up to larger assignments and then sequencing larger assignments to build on each other. I suspect that a reason for this is the literary ancestry of most of us teaching composition. My sense is that most literature courses are still structured around the study of discrete texts with mostly tenuous connections. (I’d be delighted to hear I’m wrong about that.) The consequence of our focus on larger assignments has been that day-to-day classroom work has fallen by the wayside. Most of our students’ work goes on outside of class. They are expected, then, to bring that work to class to discuss or worse, simply hand it in for feedback and classroom time is devoted to . . . what? I suspect in most comp classrooms, it’s devoted to some sort of textual analysis. Walvoord and Anderson have argued for turning that work sequence upside down: assign students their first exposure to knowledge and material outside of class and then, have them do something to reinforce that exposure in class. I find this a powerful model but not easy to put into practice. It requires a great deal of planning, and I suspect it has not been instituted widely. It also means that coverage is de-emphasized. You can only DO so much in 50–75 minutes, but you can SAY a lot more. But if you’ve shifted your instructional goals from having students produce 4–6 big assignments to having students learn-dare I say it-“universal” cognitive skills and composition strategies that cross disciplinary boundaries and develop metacognitive antennae for contextual cues that will signal knowledge transfer, then “coverage” gets redefined in a way that promotes smaller assignments best done in the classroom. |