THE THINGS THEY CARRIED: CONCEPTIONS OF WRITING TRANSFER IN 
COMPOSITION STUDIES 
 
Elizabeth Mary Hollis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is 
my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not 
include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
 
____________________________ 
Elizabeth Mary Hollis 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
____________________________       ____________________________ 
Michelle Sidler  Kevin Roozen, Chair 
Assistant Professor                                                     Associate  Professor                            
English English
 
 
 
 
____________________________          ____________________________ 
Isabelle Thompson George T. Flowers 
Associate Professor Dean 
English Graduate School
 
 THE THINGS THEY CARRIED: CONCEPTIONS OF WRITING TRANSFER IN 
COMPOSITION STUDIES 
 
Elizabeth Mary Hollis 
 
 
 
 
A Thesis 
 
 
Submitted to 
 
 
the Graduate Faculty 
 
 
of Auburn University 
 
 
in Partial Fulfillment of the 
 
 
Requirements for the 
 
 
Degree of  
 
 
Master of Arts 
 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
 
August 10, 2009 
iii 
THE THINGS THEY CARRIED: CONCEPTIONS OF WRITING TRANSFER IN 
COMPOSITION STUDIES 
 
Elizabeth Mary Hollis 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion 
upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense.  
The author reserves all publication rights. 
 
 
 
______________________________ 
Signature of Author 
 
______________________________ 
Date of Graduation 
 
 
 
iv 
VITA 
 
Elizabeth Mary Hollis, daughter of Robert Austin and Barbara Jean Smith, was born 
on July 22, 1985 in Chicago, Illinois. She graduated with honors from Carrollton High 
School in Carrollton, Georgia in 2003. Graduating Cum Laude from Auburn University in 
the fall of 2006, she received a Bachelor of the Arts degree in English with a minor in 
Psychology. As a graduate student, Elizabeth focused her research and course work in 
Rhetoric and Composition, particularly literacy and transfer studies. She graduated again 
from Auburn University in August 2009 with a Master of the Arts degree in English. 
Elizabeth married Joseph Johnson Hollis, Jr. on July 7, 2007.
v 
THESIS ABSTRACT 
 
THE THINGS THEY CARRIED: CONCEPTIONS OF WRITING TRANSFER IN 
COMPOSITION STUDIES 
 
Elizabeth Mary Hollis 
 
Master of Arts, August 10, 2009 
Bachelor of Arts, English 
 
56 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by Kevin Roozen 
 
This thesis will look at a body of scholarship that dominates both short and long-
term case studies of writing and will attempt to understand and identify assumptions that 
underlie how they are enacted. Through this examination, it will be made clear how 
definitions coined some twenty years ago by David N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon have 
been taken up and continue to influence and shape current research on writing 
development, specifically that of Anne Beaufort?s College Writing and Beyond and 
David W. Smit?s The End of Composition Studies. Together, such analyses of Beaufort?s 
and Smit?s work will explain why we are left with the same discouraging conclusions that 
transfer is difficult and not always possible. With so much predicated on transfer when 
analyzing the success of students in their writing and academic careers, highlighting 
biases and assumptions will help to move beyond those now antiquated terms to view 
transfer in a new light.
vi 
Style manual used: MLA 
 
 
Computer software used: MS Word
vii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
CHAPTER I.  ?NOTES? FROM ?IN THE FIELD? ...................................................1 
      CHAPTER II.  ?THE GHOST SOLDIERS? ..............................................................9 
CHAPTER III.  ?FIELD TRIP? ..................................................................................... 17 
CHAPTER IV.  ?ON THE RAINY RIVER?............................................................27 
CHAPTER V.  ?THE THINGS THEY CARRIED?.................................................37 
      WORKS CITED. ?????????. ................................................................49 
 1 
 
 
 
Chapter One: ?Notes? from ?In the Field?
1
 
 
 ?Now we have arrived at what I take to be the heart of the matter in learning to write. If 
writing is a complex number of related abilities that rely on very different kinds of 
knowledge, depending on the writer?s purpose and context, when writers learn any 
particular piece of knowledge or when they learn how to put a particular skill into 
practice, just what have they learned?...In psychology and learning theory, these 
questions are part of a process called ?transfer.? ? David W. Smit
2
 
  
In an English classroom in 1975, a sixteen year-old student, Jeff, sits in a sixth 
grade classroom and is scolded for drawing during a standard pre-writing exercise and 
told to ?get to work? (Atwell 7). While students around him are presumably on task in 
their writing activities, Jeff opts to draw sailboats as a means to sort through his ideas for 
the specified creative-writing assignment (7). Several years later, his teacher, Nancie 
Atwell, discovered that what she had designed for her students as ?helpful structures 
(had) served Jeff as constraints? (8). Why did this happen? Why was Atwell so resistant 
to accept the different pre-writing practices in which Jeff was participating and favor the 
more traditional, writing and outline methods preferred in classrooms and the academy? 
On a simple level, Jeff?s story is one of many that take place in academic classrooms. 
Students transfer, or carry over, skills used outside the confines of a classroom into their 
academic lives in an effort to appropriate the task to their own means. However, due to 
the fact that Atwell was not able to observe Jeff outside of school, she could not witness 
                                                
 
1
Title of the 16
th
 and 17
th
 stories in O?Brien?s collection.  
 
2
 Taken from Chapter 6 of Smit?s 2004 The End of Composition Studies. 
 2 
the positive outcomes of Jeff?s in-class activities, however often they were deemed off-
task and not useful. More complexly, Jeff?s reappropriation of the mandated in-class pre-
writing activities and Atwell?s attempts to make Jeff conform to her expectations is one 
example among many of the daily instances of transfer that students routinely practice. 
While Jeff was transferring skills that he found useful and had honed outside of academic 
settings, such transfer was deemed negative and unfit for his schooling context.  
Over 30 years later, in her 2004 CCCC address, Kathleen B. Yancey called for a 
dramatic change in the way composition is constructed, discussed and taught in order to 
better accommodate students like Jeff, who are transferring outside influences into their 
academic tasks. Yancey notes that ?never before has the proliferation of writings outside 
the academy so counterpointed the compositions inside? (298). Along with the continued 
advances in technology and the ways in which such tools are being manipulated and 
appropriated, questions are raised that ?suggest ways that literacy is created across 
spaces, across time? (Yancey 298). Yancey is arguing the need to look at writing more 
broadly so that practices like Jeff?s can be valued and appreciated. With writing outside 
the classroom continually influencing the writing inside the classroom, transfer is central 
to Yancey?s call and an understanding of the term becomes critical in order to move 
forward within composition studies. 
Discussions of transfer are not new to composition studies, however, the ways in 
which the term is traditionally discussed have not changed with the passing of time, 
going against Yancey?s call and ultimately limiting what can and is viewed as successful 
transfer. Often discussed within the confines of case studies, transfer has been a topic at 
the forefront of educational studies since the late 1980s. As a practice, the study of a 
 3 
student?s writing has long been viewed as one of the best ways to glean information 
about their writing processes. This study of one?s writing inevitably leads to a discussion 
of transfer due to the cross-disciplinary approach in many case studies, a discussion 
which continues due to the often elusive nature of transfer. In order to better understand 
how transfer has been constructed within composition studies, this thesis will look at two 
foundational articles by David N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon, ?Teaching for Transfer? 
and ?Transfer of Learning,? and the key assumptions made about transfer within those 
articles. Through this examination, it will be clear how definitions coined over twenty 
years ago continue to shape and influence current research on writing development and 
freshman writing curriculum, specifically the work of Anne Beaufort and David W. Smit  
As a term and practice, transfer has been defined in several different, yet 
altogether, similar ways. In 1992, David N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon defined transfer 
as ?the ability to apply knowledge, skill, and specific strategies from one domain to other 
novel situations? (8). Later, in 2004, David W. Smit posed that transfer involves a simple 
question: ?in what sense can various kinds of knowledge and skill be transferred from 
one situation to another, or learned in one context and applied in another?? (119). 
Through these various definitions, the issue of transfer appears quite clear. What also 
appears clear, however, is how similar Smit?s definition is to Perkins and Salomon?s, 
despite the years of research and supposed advancement in the study of writing 
development. Ultimately, while Perkins and Salomon provide a foundation for the study 
of transfer, their definition is flawed due to three governing principles/assumptions: 
transfer should be studied only in academic settings, transfer can be taught, and the 
integrity of the skill before and after transfer should not be compromised. These 
 4 
assumptions will be further analyzed and contextualized in Chapter two, followed by a 
critical look at how those assumptions present themselves in the work of Beaufort and 
Smit. 
While this study will focus intensely on the work of Beaufort and Smit, recent 
articles by Gerald Nelms and Ronda Leathers Dively
3
 as well as Diane F. Halpern?s 
?Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Dispositions, Skills, Structure 
Training and Metacognitive Monitoring,? continue to show the influence of Perkins and 
Salomon, particularly the articles examined in this thesis, as they are cited throughout 
Nelms and Dively?s and Halpern?s work. Additionally, Elizabeth Wardle?s 
?Understanding ?Transfer? from FYC: Preliminary Results from a Longitudinal Study? 
provides interesting findings in relation to the work discussed within this study. Wardle 
followed seven former students from her Fall 2004 FYC course into their later writing 
within the university, focusing on four specific questions: ?what do students feel they 
learned and did in FYC, what kinds of writing are students doing elsewhere, how do 
students perceive that writing and what strategies do they use to complete it, and do 
students perceive FYC as helping them with later writing assignments across the 
university? (70). Wardle?s students felt that they had learned in FYC, but her findings 
conclude that students did not transfer those skills not because they did not learn, but 
because they did not ?perceive a need to adopt or adapt most of the writing behaviors 
they used in FYC for other courses? (76). Unlike much of the literature that proliferate 
the field, Wardle shifts the responsibility for transfer from the teacher, who must be 
                                                
3
 See ?Perceived Roadblocks to Transferring Knowledge from First-Year Writing-Intensive Major Courses: 
A Pilot Study.? 
 5 
provided a ?recipe
4
? for transfer, onto the student, who must determine what skills are 
appropriate for them to transfer based on the situation. Wardle further emphasizes the 
need for ?context-specific? education with the hopes that familiar situations will trigger 
the desired transfer of skills (82).  
 Furthering notions of student accountability, in ?Disciplinarity and Transfer: 
Student?s Perceptions of Learning to Write,? Linda Bergmann and Janet Zepernick 
observed ?a tendency among students to actively reject the idea that what they learned 
about writing in high school or in first year composition (FYC) courses should be applied 
to the writing they were asked to do in courses in other disciplines? (124). Here it would 
seem that no matter what ?recipe? scholars such as Perkins and Salomon suggest, 
students are still left with the responsibility to transfer useful skills and apply them in 
other areas. In their research, Bergmann and Zepernick observed four focus groups of 7-
10 participants, ranging in area of study. Several students were later pulled from the 
initial groups and placed into follow-up groups for further questioning. Overall, students 
felt that the writing they were asked to produce in English classes was ?expressive rather 
than academic or professional,? had a more personal feel, was a ?natural act,? and most 
importantly, writing skills were not ?portable? (129). Not viewing students in their 
learning environment makes  it difficult to infer with certainty whether or not such 
assumptions were because of the teacher?s methods or the students? own desires, but such 
a level of consensus among the respondents lends credibility to their assertions.  
The presence of Perkins and Salomon in such recent articles makes an analysis of 
their influence in larger studies and texts all the more useful. Accordingly, this study 
                                                
4
 Found in Perkins and Salomon?s ?Teaching for Transfer,? and discussed more extensively in Chapter 
Two. 
 6 
seeks to illuminate the presence of Perkins and Salomon in two present analyses of 
writing development and freshman writing curriculum: Anne Beaufort?s College Writing 
and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction and David W. Smit?s 
The End of Composition Studies. Beaufort?s 2007 study follows a student, Tim, 
throughout his First Year Composition (FYC) course, as well as his history, engineering, 
and post-College writing. Spanning six years, Beaufort was able to compile a plethora of 
data from interviews, writing samples, instructor comments and sources used. Beaufort 
herself notes that while her study is ?not generalizable, (it) offers the potential for 
refining a conceptual framework for writing expertise that could be tested in other 
settings? (26). Despite such intensive work, this thesis will reveal the limitations still 
present in Beaufort?s conclusions, aside from those traditionally given to longitudinal 
case studies.  
Conversely, Smit?s 2004 contribution to the field seeks to redefine composition 
studies and restructure graduate and undergraduate composition curriculum. Throughout 
his book, Smit firmly situates himself among those who feel that a strictly composition-
themed course should be abolished within the freshmen core curriculum and favors a 
broader approach, referred to as Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC). Smit devotes a 
chapter to each of the shortcomings, or ?conceptual limits?  he sees within composition, 
including the process of learning to write, writing process models, an inability to see 
writing as a social practice, the cognitive aspect of writing, and the focus of this study, 
transfer. While Smit offers what he feels are solutions to such problems and hints that the 
field may need to be dissolved altogether, within his proposal lurks the influence of 
Perkins and Salomon, ultimately limiting his proposed changes. Together, such analyses 
 7 
of Beaufort?s and Smit?s work will attempt to explain why, despite the large degree of 
progress seen in the field of composition and writing studies in particular, we are left with 
the same discouraging conclusions that transfer is difficult and not always possible. With 
so much predicated on transfer when analyzing the success of students in their writing 
and academic careers, highlighting biases and assumptions will help to move beyond 
those now antiquated terms to view transfer in a new light.  
This argument will be further foregrounded in Chapter Two, where I will utilize 
the work of Perkins and Salomon to ground transfer and locate it within the narrow 
criteria under which they operate. These definitions will be drawn specifically from their 
articles ?Teaching for Transfer? and ?Transfer of Learning,? published in 1988 and 1992 
respectively. Ultimately, Chapter Two will outline the key assumptions seen in their work 
and how they not only limit the way transfer has been discussed within academic settings, 
but also how such notions have been retained within academia. With Perkins and 
Salomon?s assumptions in mind, Chapter Three and Four will examine how such criteria 
are present and operate in the work of Beaufort and Smit. Through close readings of their 
texts, key sections will be discussed; particularly those that best showcase the influence 
of Perkins and Salomon and inevitably limit their own conclusions and analyses. Such a 
practical illumination of the biases that are still present will allow for Chapter Five?s 
conclusions and implications for future research, as well as possible new applications 
within the classroom. Specifically utilizing the work of Margaret A. Syverson, who 
favors an ecological approach to composition that takes into account the myriad of 
factors that influence writing both within and outside academic settings, among others, 
will bring into sharp focus the necessity for a new term from which to discuss transfer. 
 8 
This discussion on new ways with which to reference transfer will more correctly 
acknowledge that transfer is influenced and seen differently depending upon the 
individual, occurs in countless settings,  especially those that are outside the classroom 
and is ultimately not as elusive and fraught with difficulty as previously implicated.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
Chapter Two: ?The Ghost Soldiers?-
5
 a Look at the Work of David N. Perkins and 
Gavriel Salomon 
This chapter will take a detailed and close look at two seminal texts in the study 
of transfer: Perkins and Salomon?s ?Teaching for Transfer? and ?Transfer of Learning.? 
While Perkins and Salomon have published extensively on the subject of transfer, 
including ?Transfer and Teaching Thinking,? ?Are Cognitive Skills Context Bound,? 
?Transfer of Cognitive Skills from Programming: When and How,? and ?Rocky Roads to 
Transfer: Rethinking Mechanisms of a Neglected Phenomenon,? ?Teaching for Transfer? 
and ?Transfer of Learning? will be examined here due to their foundational nature and 
the way in which they illuminate Perkins and Salomon?s three governing assumptions: 
transfer must be taught; transfer only occurs within academic settings, further creating a 
distinction between life in and outside of school; and that in order for the transfer to be 
considered successful, the integrity of the skill must not be compromised. While these 
assumptions arguably inform and build off one another, in order to discuss these 
assumptions fully, this chapter will look at each separately, analyzing key passages in the 
text in which these governing principles are most apparent. 
Assumption One: Transfer must be taught 
  Those seeking evidence of assumption one need go no further that the title and 
sub-heading of Perkins and Salomon?s ?Teaching for Transfer.? Under the title, in large 
bold-face, they state that ?students often fail to apply knowledge and skills learned in one 
context to other situations. With well-designed instruction, we can increase the likelihood 
                                                
5
 Title of the 20
th
 story in O?Brien?s collection. 
 10 
that they will? (22). From the start, Perkins and Salomon have established that this article 
will be focused on ways in which to teach transfer, a task they deem to be the central 
focus of what any education system hopes to achieve (22). When establishing the need 
for transfer to be taught, Perkins and Salomon note that ?transfer does not take care of 
itself, and conventional schooling pays little heed to the problems. With proper attention, 
we can do much more to teach for transfer than we are now doing? (22). Of course, given 
that ?Teaching for Transfer? was published in 1988, a current study of America?s 
educational system would be necessary in order to determine if more is being done to 
achieve the hoped-for transfer discussed by Perkins and Salomon. However, Chapters 
three and four will attempt to do just that by analyzing works by Anne Beaufort and 
David Smit.  
When addressing the issue of why transfer is ?worrisome,? Perkins and Salomon 
explain:  
the implicit assumption in educational practice has been that transfer takes care of 
itself. To be lighthearted about a heavy problem, one might call this the ?Bo 
Peep? theory of transfer. Let them alone and they?ll come home, wagging their 
tails behind them. If students acquire information about the Revolutionary War 
and the Westward emigration, if they learn some problem solving skills in math 
and some critical thinking skills in social studies, all this will more or less 
automatically spill over to the many other contexts?where it might apply, we 
hope. Unfortunately, considerable research and everyday experience testify that 
the Bo Peep theory is inordinately optimistic. (23) 
 11 
When discussing instances where transfer may occur, Perkins and Salomon imply, via 
statements like ?with well designed instruction, we can increase the likelihood that they 
will,? that said skills must be taught, or learned, in order for one to achieve the transfer 
desired (22). Teaching with the goal of transfer in mind does not seem like an altogether 
bad thing, yet when working under the assumption that transfer can only occur when it is 
taught, instances of transfer can be ignored that were not what the instructor, or 
researcher had in mind.  
 A key assertion behind Perkins and Salomon?s insistence that transfer must be 
taught is that without proper instruction, students will not ?transfer the knowledge to 
problem-solving contexts where they have to think about new situations? (23). Not only 
does this severely limit the capabilities seen on the part of the student to recognize similar 
situations, but it further enforces an error model of education where instructors are 
constantly filling in the deficit of knowledge perceived in their students, as opposed to 
working with the skills brought in to the classroom and aiding students in using the tools 
for themselves. While maintaining that transfer should be taught in order to achieve the 
best results, Perkins and Salomon address this key issue by directly questioning, ?Can we 
teach transfer?? (28). They maintain that while the most ?artful instructional design will 
not provoke transfer if the knowledge and skills in question are fundamentally local in 
character,? they offer the terms ?bridging? and ?hugging? as a solution to such a problem. 
Since they contend that students cannot be expected to make connections that they have 
not been taught to make, hugging, or ?teaching so as to better meet the resemblance 
conditions for low road transfer? and bridging, ?teaching so as to better the conditions for 
high road transfer? are ways in which teachers can mediate the transfer process, 
 12 
increasing, in Perkins and Salomon?s opinion, the likelihood that it will occur. 
Throughout these statements, Perkins and Salomon make it clear that the teacher must be 
inextricably involved in the transfer process, given the teacher-student relationship of 
academic settings. This further foregrounds the fact that transfer must be taught and 
ultimately, given that this ?teaching for transfer? method is the only one discussed, it can 
be assumed that Perkins and Salomon place more value on instances of transfer that occur 
in academic settings over those that do not.  
 Perkins and Salomon maintain that education can achieve ?abundant transfer if it 
is designed to do so,? (8) mirroring their previous attempts at providing a ?recipe? for 
transfer. This recipe, utilizing the previously discussed tools of bridging and hugging, 
provides some of the strongest evidence for Perkins and Salomon?s insistence that 
transfer can be taught, They claim that ?taken together, the notions of bridging and 
hugging write a relatively simply recipe for transfer: First, imagine the transfer you want. 
Next, shape instruction to hug closer to the transfer desired. Also, shape instruction to 
bridge to the transfer desired? (24).  Under this ?recipe,? it would appear that transfer is 
in fact easy to accomplish, if you are teaching and looking for it in the right places. 
Indeed, Perkins and Salomon insist that ?such teamwork between bridging and hugging 
practically guarantees making the most of whatever potential transfer a subject matter 
affords? (30). However, if transfer were indeed as simple as providing a recipe for 
teachers to use in their classrooms, dismal claims about transfer, such as those made by 
Smit that transfer is ?largely unpredictable,? would not be as prevalent in the literature 
available (119). 
 13 
Assumption Two: Transfer occurring in academic settings is privileged over other 
instances 
As previously mentioned above, each of Perkins and Salomon?s assumptions 
build off one another. Operating under the belief that transfer must be taught, it stands to 
reason that such teaching practices occur in an academic setting. By providing a ?recipe? 
for transfer, Perkins and Salmon privilege the transfer occurring within the walls of the 
classroom, specifically since the classroom is the only realm in which they discuss the 
occurrence of transfer.  Furthermore, the importance of transfer in education is 
highlighted as Perkins and Salomon note that ?any survey of what education hopes to 
achieve discloses that transfer is integral to our expectations and aspirations for 
education?the transfer of basic skills is a routine target of schooling? (22). While one 
may question just what ?basic skills? Perkins and Salomon are referring, the importance 
of transfer within education and the need to increase its likelihood is established.  
Continuing through their articles, Perkins and Salomon routinely refer to 
instances of transfer that occur within academic settings, neglecting the tacit transfer 
done each day by students outside the four walls of the classroom. While continuing to 
discuss the role of transfer within education, Perkins and Salomon propose that 
?European and American history should help students think about current political 
events,? which would illuminate past events by connecting them to the present (23). 
Furthering this notion of expanding knowledge beyond its site of acquisition, in ?Transfer 
of Learning,? Perkins and Salomon maintain that ?transfer is a key concept in education 
and learning theory because most formal education aspires to transfer. Usually the 
context of learning?differs markedly from the ultimate contexts of application? (3). 
 14 
Despite the acknowledgement that learning within a classroom does not effectively 
approximate later application of the skill, Perkins and Salomon do not make the 
necessary move to study transfer that occurs outside the classroom in order to better 
mimic its behavior. With this in mind, the attention paid to transfer occurring in academic 
settings severely limits Perkins and Salomon in their discussion of transfer, providing 
them, and later researchers, with a small window with which to view a large, frequently 
occurring phenomenon.  
 Contrasting with the large library of information done on literacy studies by the 
likes of Street, Brice-Heath and Scribner and Cole, Perkins and Salomon propose that 
?the difficulty with testing this hypothesis is that people usually learn to write in schools, 
at the same time they learn numerous other skills that could affect their cognitive 
abilities? (24). Troubling with this statement is the fact that while much teaching of those 
skills does occur in formal, academic schooling situations, there are many instances in 
which that does not occur. Implying that such tasks are only learned in school while 
emphasizing their claim that transfer must be taught, Perkins and Salomon again 
perpetuate both the error model of education as well as the power structure at play within 
academic settings. 
Assumption Three: The integrity of the skill should not be compromised 
 Implicit in Perkins and Salomon?s assumption that the integrity of the skill being 
transferred should not be altered is the notion that transfer is mere transmission of skills 
or knowledge across a theoretical plane. This view of learning leaves no room for 
reappropriation or repurposing of the skill on the part of the student, disallowing the 
opportunity for one to interpret the information in question and use how they personally 
 15 
see fit. Behind this assumption is Perkins and Salomon?s perspective on knowledge, 
noting that ?the most discouraging explanation is that knowledge and skill may be too 
?local? to allow for many of the expectations and aspirations that educators have held? 
(25). While continuing with their rather negative outlook on the possibility for transfer, 
Perkins and Salomon identify the nature of learning, or what they deem the nature of 
learning, as the very reason why transfer does not occur. While there is a need to 
understand the contextual nature of knowledge acquisition, assuming that situations need 
be identical in order for one to transfer skill into different situations further limits how 
students are conceptualized in the classroom. 
 Evidence of this third assumption is clear from Perkins and Salomon?s definitions 
of transfer, in which they argue that transfer involves ?the ability to apply knowledge, 
skills, and specific strategies from one domain to other, novel situations? (8). Building off 
this definition and allowing it to inform the majority of their discussion on transfer, 
Perkins and Salomon contend that effective transfer is measured through a ?metric of 
closeness? between the site of acquisition and desired location of transfer, again implying 
that transfer simply crosses a metaphorical plane, traveling from point ?A? to ?B? (3-4). 
Just as Perkins and Salomon inform the work done by Beaufort, Smit and others, in 
?Transfer of Learning? it is made clear that they are informed by the earlier work of E.L. 
Thorndike
6
. Especially in regard to their third assumption, the influence of Thorndike is 
clear as they present his conclusions that transfer depends on ?identical elements in two 
performances? (4).  Furthering the discussion beyond Thorndike, Perkins and Salomon 
enter into a discussion on ?expertise,? which further foregrounds the importance of local 
                                                
6
 In the 1920?s, Thorndike conducted experiments to determine whether a basic knowledge of Latin would 
help in other academic studies. He later concluded that Latin did not predict later success. 
 16 
knowledge and the context in which knowledge is acquired. With such an importance 
placed on location and approximation to the original site of knowledge acquisition, it is 
interesting that Perkins and Salomon omit such information from their ?recipe? for 
transfer. However, this is notably absent from their analysis, making successful transfer 
based on their recommendations all the more troublesome.  
As previously noted each of Perkins and Salomon?s assumptions build off and 
inform one another. If transfer must be taught, then it will occur in academic settings 
where traditional methods of teaching are encouraged. In order for transfer to be taught, 
the skills must be used in the same way by each student, prohibiting the ability for 
students to change and restructure the skill to best fit their own learning and problem 
solving situation. As these assumptions have been illuminated in ?Teaching for Transfer? 
and ?Transfer of Leaning,? an analysis of Beaufort?s text will be offered in the following 
chapter that highlights the presence of those assumptions at work in her theoretical lens 
and later data analysis and conclusions. 
 
 
 17 
 
 
Chapter Three: ?Field Trip
7
?- An Examination of Anne Beaufort?s College Writing and 
Beyond 
While written with the goal of further understanding the way writing instruction 
from a first year composition course transfers across disciplines, Beaufort?s text also 
seeks to offer a new conceptualization of the way writing should be taught within the 
collegiate setting. By following Tim, an undergraduate, through his two freshman writing 
courses and later in his history and engineering classes, Beaufort attempts to show how 
those skills honed in his original writing classes did not transfer into other writing tasks 
and when they did transfer, the result was negative, as opposed to positive. Seeking to 
illuminate the assumptions discussed in Perkins and Salomon?s ?Teaching for Transfer? 
and ?Transfer of Learning,? this chapter will work through Beaufort?s text and through 
analysis of key passages, will show the presence of Perkins and Salomon?s influence, 
particularly the way their key assumptions color Beaufort?s findings and data analyses. 
 What makes Beaufort?s text so fruitful in terms of analysis and uncovering the 
influence of Perkins and Salomon is the vast amount of times she directly acknowledges 
the pair. In her acknowledgements, Beaufort credits them among those ?in related fields 
whose work has particularly helped frame this study? (1). Additionally, she encourages 
her readers to read all the articles she has cited by Perkins and Salomon ?for a deeper 
understanding of the research on transfer of learning? (177).  Beaufort directly cites from 
both articles discussed within this study, as well as Salomon and Tamar Globerson?s 
article, ?Skill May Not Be Enough: The Role of Mindfulness in Learning and Transfer.? 
                                                
7
 The 19
th
 story in O?Brien?s compilation. 
 18 
Such inclusions and direct calls to her readers make it evident that Beaufort has relied 
upon Perkins and Salomon to provide much of the basis of her understanding of transfer, 
and such influence is seen throughout her book.  
 Along with the fact that Beaufort directly deals with Perkins and Salomon?s texts, 
her study is rooted in issues of transfer. Through analysis of Tim and his struggles with 
writing outside his FYC courses, Beaufort notes that the ?transition from history to 
engineering discourse community norms was not smooth. It required not only learning 
new genres and new subject matter, but also encountering a host of new rhetorical 
situations, new ways of thinking, and new roles as a writer. The problems Tim 
encountered set the transfer of learning issue in bold relief? (8). Through this statement, 
Beaufort further establishes transfer, and the very Perkins and Salomon term ?transfer of 
learning,? as a crucial issue and point of contention in her study. In order to propose a 
more effective curriculum that would allow students to write effectively regardless of the 
discipline in which they are situated, transfer becomes a central part of the instruction 
Beaufort proposes as the ability to apply what one has learned in FYC in other classes is 
the end goal of the course, as opposed to completion of required papers. 
Beaufort foregrounds the notion that transfer must be taught, stating that 
?Freshman writing, if taught with an eye toward transfer of learning and with an explicit 
acknowledgement of the context of freshman writing itself as a social practice, can set 
students on a course of life-long learning so that they know how to learn to become better 
writers in a variety of social contexts? (7). From this statement, one can see Beaufort not 
only explicitly utilizing the title of one of Perkins and Salomon?s pieces, but emphasizing 
the importance of teaching for transfer in terms of a successful composition curriculum. 
 19 
Much like Perkins and Salomon, who insist that transfer be taught and follow with a 
?recipe? with which to teach transfer, Beaufort?s text offers suggestions on how to 
change the freshman writing curriculum in order to better teach for transfer.  
Furthering the notion that transfer be taught, Beaufort notes the lack of teaching 
for transfer as one of the key problems facing FYC. She contends that a major issue with 
?writing instruction in disciplinary settings is the issue of teaching students to learn how 
to learn the conventions of writing in new situations they will encounter? (15). She 
continues, noting that ?if the writing instruction is context-specific and students are not 
given the kinds of intellectual tools and frameworks for being able to become astute at 
learning to be flexible writers, they will not be able to adapt to a variety of writing 
situations? (15). This statement is strikingly similar to Perkins and Salomon?s claim that 
without well-designed instruction specifically aimed at teaching for transfer, transfer will 
not occur.  Attempting to hone in on what knowledge students need for successful writing 
in later classes, Beaufort again places emphasis on teaching for transfer when she 
proposes that to ?articulate these knowledge domains and apply them to shaping 
curriculum, we can then contextualize writing instruction more fully and have a basis for 
teaching for transfer, i.e. equipping students with a mental schema for learning writing 
skills in new genres, in new discourse communities they will encounter throughout life? 
(17). Beaufort identifies the five knowledge domains as writing process knowledge, 
subject matter knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, and genre knowledge. These spheres are 
located in the larger knowledge of the discourse community and given that there are 
numerous discourse communities, these spheres of knowledge would be different for 
each. With this model of teaching for transfer, Beaufort comes upon different struggles in 
 20 
application than those seen with Perkins and Salomon, specifically the impossibility of 
conveying to students the knowledge domains associated with every discourse 
community. Even predicting the discourse communities a student may come upon later in 
life would be a difficult task given the myriad of students in each classroom and their 
various backgrounds and career goals. Teaching for transfer is by no means a lost cause, 
but it remains clear that proposing one way in which to insure its success is ideal at best. 
When discussing the problems Tim encountered in his transition from the 
composition to history classroom, Beaufort further emphasizes the need to teach for 
transfer, noting that ?the difference between the two contexts for writing raises the 
question of transfer of learning and what role a required, entry-level course can play in 
preparing a student for the rest of his/her college education? (68). Such questions bring 
up concerns that are far too vast and infinite within the confines of this study, such as 
what should be the goal of FYC? What are composition instructors supposed to teach 
their students? Are they to prepare them for every instance of writing they may encounter 
across their life span? The fact remains that writing varies depending on the situation one 
finds themselves and making students aware of that fact appears to be a positive step. 
Teaching for transfer dominates the later portions of Beaufort?s text, particularly 
her suggestions for future writing instruction. Beaufort reiterates this importance, stating 
that ?writers will not automatically bridge or bring forward, appropriate writing strategies 
and knowledge to new writing situations unless they have an understanding of both the 
need to do so and a method for doing so? (177). Here, Beaufort echoes Perkins and 
Salomon?s claims that students will not transfer knowledge if not given the opportunities 
to do so and the instruction that facilitates such transfer, and further foregrounds the 
 21 
importance of teaching for transfer. These assumptions, however, continue to be 
problematic in their insistence that students will not tacitly transfer knowledge. Again, 
these emphasize a deficit model of education, a problem that reaches beyond the scope of 
issues of transfer. In the same section, Beaufort calls for writing instructors to ?teach the 
practice of mindfulness, or meta-cognition, to facilitate positive transfer of 
learning?What is important for transfer is constantly connecting new and already-
acquired knowledge? (182). Connecting new and old information is not only important in 
transfer, but knowledge retention as well, an act that students must participate in daily. 
By conflating such ideas with teaching for transfer, Beaufort again situates the instructor 
in the middle of the student?s learning process, further limiting what they are able to 
achieve on their own.  
 Perhaps one of the strongest indicators of the presence of Perkins and Salomon?s 
assumptions, particularly the assumption that transfer occurring in academic settings is 
privileged over others, occurs in the structure of Beaufort?s study and the means through 
which she collected data. Over the course of six years, Beaufort conducted interviews 
with Tim and his FYC instructor, obtained writing samples and compared source 
materials from his history and FYC papers to the ?finished
8
? product. Additionally, when 
available, Beaufort consulted ?experts? to look at the papers Tim produced in his history 
and engineering courses as well as evaluator comments and classroom observation (27). 
While this provides a plethora of data from which Beaufort was able to draw her 
conclusions, one can see that each form of data collection is rooted in the formal, 
academic settings favored by Perkins and Salomon and many others. Beaufort states in 
                                                
8
 Some scholars, Donald Murray in particular, would argue that writing is never finished, but rather turned 
in for a grade due to the time constraints placed on student?s writing within academic settings. 
 22 
her introduction that ?assessing change or development in writing is also compounded by 
the fact that written products do not tell the whole story of what has transpired for the 
writer? (24). However, by only collecting and analyzing the written products produced by 
Tim, Beaufort herself is given only one side of the story, limiting the instances of transfer 
she is ultimately able to see. As Beaufort credits Perkins and Salomon extensively 
throughout her text, their assumptions are at play very early on in Beaufort?s study, 
restricting what she is able to see even before conclusions are made and data is collected. 
While it cannot be said with absolute certainty, it would appear that Perkins and Salomon 
form the theoretical lens through which she examines her subjects, ultimately creating the 
skewed and constraining conclusions she later draws. 
 Explaining her methodology, Beaufort comments that ?seeing the subject ?in 
action?- either by field observation or by interviews with others in the field of action- 
allows that critical element of triangulation: taking what the subject says and comparing 
it with others? views and with the subject?s work? (215).  For Beaufort, and Perkins and 
Salomon, observing writing and its potential for transfer ?in action? occurs within 
academic settings, as these are the only realms of action that either observes. While the 
sole attention paid to academic setting is troubling with Perkins and Salomon as well as 
Beaufort, in her case it becomes almost antithetical to the very ideas she proposes, 
especially given her repeated insistence on including the social, or life outside the 
classroom, into the teaching of writing. As noted above, Beaufort is aware that looking at 
the finished written product does not tell the ?whole story of what transpired has for the 
writer? (24).  However, by only viewing writing occurring within academic settings, 
Beaufort continues to miss the ?whole story.? Furthermore, Beaufort encourages other 
 23 
researchers and members of the academy to use a ?holistic? approach when conducting 
research, again, an advisement that is not enacted in her own work, even as she continues 
to note the need to ?take into account all of the knowledge components embedded within 
literate acts, no matter what level or social context of writing development is being 
examined? (25). In this instance, Perkins and Salomon provide a theoretical framework 
that structures Beaufort?s methodology, but also severely limits the conclusions she is 
able to draw by supplying her with a narrow avenue from which to collect information. 
 A key example of what Beaufort misses by viewing Tim solely in the context of 
his academic pursuits occurs when examining Tim?s writing. During his freshman writing 
courses, Tim frequently chose writing topics and formulated arguments that were 
informed by his personal religious convictions. Encouraged to find topics that students 
felt passionate about, Tim often veered away from the environmental issues discussed in 
class and for one assignment chose to discuss the ethical implications of genetic 
engineering, grounding his research in an article from Perspectives on Science and 
Christian Faith. Not directed in class to move towards such topics, it would appear that 
Tim?s interests and skills outside the classroom leaked into his academic sphere and 
determined his topic. Rewarded for this action, Tim was routinely praised by his 
instructor for ?writing beautifully,? and so he continued pulling from those influences 
and writing on the basis of his own interests (34). Not pursuing this avenue of influence 
and continuing to look only at Tim?s academic career stands as another example of 
Perkins and Salomon?s influence skewing Beaufort?s results and limiting what she is able 
to see. 
 24 
Just as the insistence that transfer be taught reinforces a deficit model of 
education, viewing students in strictly academic settings and neglecting their lives outside 
the classroom perpetuates a trend to view students and subjects as an ?other,? separate 
from their instructor or the person performing the study. Beaufort?s tendency to view Tim 
as only the subject of her study causes her to miss one of the largest influences on Tim?s 
writing process and progress as a writer. Just as Perkins and Salomon promote the view 
that transfer only occurs within academic settings Beaufort only looks at Tim within 
academic settings, creating an unfinished and partial view of Tim as a person. Instead, he 
is student, subject, and object of study.  
Evidence of Perkins and Salomon?s third assumption is clear in the discourse 
model of knowledge that Beaufort proposes as a framework from which to teach for 
transfer. She suggests that 
What is most important for those teachers, administrators, and researchers reading 
this is  
not how far this one writer progressed toward any form of writing expertise, but 
rather, the mental note we should make: look at the whole picture- the five 
knowledge domains in writing expertise - not one part or two when trying to help 
writers or to assess them. Each aspect of the knowledge involved in the writing 
expertise is important, each affects the other areas in which the writer is seeking 
mastery. (148-8) 
Implicit in the discourse model is the idea that one can teach to each discourse available. 
It would appear that an instructor need merely tell a student the norms of each discourse 
and later, when a student finds themselves within that sphere, recalling that information 
 25 
will insure their success.  However, akin to Perkins and Salomon?s ?recipe,? mastery of a 
discourse and an understanding of its norms and expectations involves more than 
carefully designed instruction. 
Reflecting further Perkins and Salomon?s third assumption that transfer is merely 
a transmission across a theoretical knowledge plane, Beaufort discusses several instances 
of ?negative? transfer on Tim?s part when moving from his FYC to history courses. In an 
interview with Beaufort, Tim explained that ?the biggest thing I guess from her that I 
learned, which I still hold onto, is that audience is everything. That was her biggest and 
first point I think, for the whole year. Audience is everything and style is fun? (36). That 
said, Tim theoretically transferred the importance of audience that he learned from FYC 
and tried to implement those considerations into his history papers. However, Tim was 
rebuffed by his instructor and GTA and forced to produce writing that he felt was 
?writing for the sake of writing? (54). Upon first glance it would appear that Tim 
transferred the knowledge, like he was supposed to, and while it may have been an 
instance where he needed to re-evaluate who he was writing to and in what situation he 
was writing, the transfer none the less occurred. However, due to the fact that Tim was 
instructed to write in a different manner, Beaufort concluded that the transfer did not 
occur and if it did, it was negative, meaning that it impeded Tim?s success, rather than 
aiding his development as a writer. When discussing and evaluating Tim?s writing in his 
later courses, it would appear that Tim transferred everything he learned and simply had 
to adjust to each new discourse community and their established rules and conventions. 
That said, in addressing her conclusions from Tim?s writing experiences, Beaufort 
questions ?what was gained from freshman writing that could serve Tim as he 
 26 
encountered writing situations requiring different sorts of knowledge and skill? The 
question remains elusive and troubling? (105). While the adjustment to writing in other 
discourses may not have been as smooth as Beaufort apparently wanted to see, one 
cannot deny that Tim did indeed transfer what he learned in FYC and simply had to 
adjust, on his own terms and within his own timetable, producing the individual 
differences that Perkins and Salomon, as well as Beaufort seem to shy away from.  
 While Perkins and Salomon should be given their due credit for providing a 
language and avenue with which to discuss one of the very bases of education, without 
moving beyond their limiting framework, all those who attempt to redefine the structure 
of writing instruction and look at the way skills are transferred will continue to see the 
same antiquated results. For Beaufort, framing her research around Perkins and 
Salomon?s assumptions caused her to miss actual, positive instances of transfer on Tim?s 
part, such as his interest in writing on religious topics. Additionally, she concluded that 
successful transfer of writing skills did not occur due to the struggles Tim encountered 
when initially writing in his History and Engineering courses. These conclusions become 
troubling when one is using findings to re-structure FYC programs, a task additionally 
taken up by David W. Smit and his chapter on transfer, a discussion of which will 
continue in the following chapter. 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 
Chapter Four: ?On the Rainy River
9
? ? Perkins and Salomon?s Influence on David W. 
Smit?s The End of Composition Studies 
As previously noted, Smit?s text sets out to provide a new framework for 
freshman composition, one that operates under a ?writing across the curriculum? model 
as opposed to general writing instruction. Modeling analysis after that seen in Chapter 
Three?s look at Beaufort?s work, this chapter seeks to uncover the influence of Perkins 
and Salomon?s governing assumptions in chapter six of Smit?s End of Composition 
Studies, appropriately titled ?Transfer.? Due to the fact that the text analyzed here is a 
chapter as opposed to a book, the amount of information available for analysis is not as 
abundant, but given that Smit devotes an entire chapter to transfer and saves such an 
analysis as the last in his list of the major problems he sees with current writing 
instruction, such an analysis is fruitful. 
As with Beaufort?s text, Smit directly cites Perkins and Salomon, providing solid 
evidence that he is indeed familiar with their work and has used it to inform his 
discussion on transfer. Appearing suitably in his chapter on transfer and more specifically 
within his concluding remarks, Smit echoes the importance Perkins and Salomon?s place 
on the contextual nature of knowledge and refers his readers to several articles written by 
the duo when discussing the differences between novice and expert writers and the 
inherent differences in their writing processes, notably one not discussed within this 
study: ?Are Cognitive Skills Context Bound?? (134). Smit uses Perkins and Salomon to 
                                                
9
 The 4
th
 short story in O?Brien?s collection and chosen for this chapter due to the distinctly negative and 
dreary tone regarding FYC taken up by Smit throughout his book. 
 28 
not only provide a foundation for transfer, but to enforce his main point that teaching a 
general knowledge of writing skills is not enough for students in FYC courses. Directly 
quoting the pair, Smit notes that ?there are general cognitive skills, but they always 
function in contextual ways? (134). Given the contextual nature of knowledge and its 
ability to function differently in different settings, Smit feels that transfer, if desired, must 
be central to any curriculum and instructional plan, grounding his proposal in Perkins and 
Salmon?s first assumption that transfer must be taught. 
Smit opens his chapter, stating: 
Overwhelmingly, the evidence suggests that learners do not necessarily transfer 
the kinds of knowledge and skills they have learned previously to new tasks. If 
such transfer occurs at all, it is largely unpredictable and depends on the learners? 
background and experience, factors over which teachers have little control?The 
only way teachers can help students with the process of transfer is to help them 
see the similarities between what they have learned before and what they need to 
do in new contexts. (119) 
Due to the elusive nature of transfer, Smit insists that teaching for transfer is central to its 
success. Its ?unpredictable? nature leaves it up to the teacher to facilitate, removing 
agency from the student and positioning power within the institution. Such a view once 
again ignores the fact that students participate in activities of transfer on a routine basis 
and foregrounds/privileges transfer that occurs in academic settings as more important 
and of value. However, within his insistence that transfer be taught, Smit highlights some 
of the very problems in attempting to teach for transfer, notably the differences in each 
student?s ?background and experience? (119).  Again, teaching with transfer in mind is 
 29 
not a bad thing, but assuming that specialized instruction is the only route to transfer is 
misleading and offers an oversimplified solution to a complex problem.  
 Operating under the same deficit model of education as Perkins and Salomon and 
further reflecting their first assumption, Smit notes that we cannot ?assume? that students 
will know how to write in different contexts if they are not shown how (121). Again, Sit 
concludes that students must be taught how to use skills in different contexts or such 
behaviors will not take place. Conversely, we cannot assume that they do not know how. 
Perhaps, if given the opportunity, students could be capable of accomplishing such tasks, 
as seen in Jody Shipka?s ?A Multimodal Task-Based Framework for Composing
10
.? If 
allowed to decide for themselves which skills are important to transfer into other areas of 
study, whether they are aware of such transferred knowledge or not, students could 
potentially produce just the work that scholars and others in the academy have been 
desiring. Furthermore, teaching for transfer in a specified manner assumes that there is a 
right and wrong way to not only teach for transfer, but to conduct that transfer, a 
byproduct of Perkins and Salomon?s first assumption that leads to their notion that 
transfer is transmission. 
Smit further mirrors Perkins and Salomon?s first assumption when he states:  
writing teachers get what they teach for, instruction in particular kinds of 
knowledge and skill and not broad-based writing ability. If we want to promote 
the transfer of certain kinds of writing abilities from one class to another or one 
context to another, then we are going to have to find the means to institutionalize 
the similarities between the way writing is done in a variety of contexts. (120) 
                                                
10
 Shipka argues that ?students have a much richer imagination for what might be accomplished?than our 
journals have yet to even begun to imagine, let alone to address? (282). She proposes that we imagine all 
the communicative practices available to the student and allow for experimentation and implementation. 
 30 
While attempts to ?institutionalize? writing instruction would possibly help insure greater 
accountability and consistency in writing programs, such moves would mark further 
strides against reappropriation by the student in terms of learning, furthering the notion 
that transfer is transmission. Smit?s sentiment that ?writing teachers get that they teach 
for,? not only encourages the direct teaching of transfer skills, but also echoes Perkins 
and Salomon?s assumption that transfer involves the movement of a skill across a 
theoretical knowledge plane. More realistically, it appears that while teachers may often 
?get what they teach for,? there are often surprises on the part of students, both positive 
and negative. This fact seems to stem from the individual nature of learning and not from 
a failure on the part of the teacher to teach for transfer, as Perkins and Salomon and 
others would have readers believe.  
 Despite moving away from Perkins and Salomon at times throughout his chapter, 
Smit reflects their assumptions, particularly that transfer be taught, when he states: ?the 
only principle we have is that transfer can be taught if the similarities of the knowledge 
and skill needed in different contexts are pointed out? (132). While such ideas would be 
helpful in a classroom setting, this statement further foregrounds the influence of Perkins 
and Salomon by insisting that transfer be taught, that skills should not be changed, as 
well as continuing to discount the ability of the student to comprehend subject matter and 
make connections on their own. This vein of reasoning is continued in Smit?s closing 
remarks as he makes it clear that ?we must find ways to help novices see the similarities 
between what they already know and what they might apply from that previously learned 
knowledge to other writing tasks? (134). The ?we? in Smit?s statement is clearly teachers 
 31 
and instructors, furthering the insistence on teaching for transfer despite the many 
different learning styles and educational backgrounds seen in any given classroom.   
Concluding his chapter with suggestions for new ways of teaching, Smit proposes 
to his readers that  
the most effective pedagological methods for teaching writing may be those that 
immerse novices in particular social contexts, giving them the opportunity to use 
writing to accomplish very specific tasks in those contexts, and promote a sense 
of how what they are doing has been shaped by what they have learned before and 
how it might be used in different contexts in the future. (134) 
No where in this chapter or in the entire book for that matter does Smit discuss the 
influence of activities outside of school or reference any studies that do so. Rather, 
importance is given to the academy and remains there throughout his argument, creating 
a reconceptualization of writing instruction that does little to enhance what knowledge 
students can be expected to leave a writing program with. Smit further argues that ?if we 
want to help students to transfer what they have learned, we must teach them how to do 
so. That is, we must find ways to help novices see the similarities between what they 
already know and what they might apply from that previously learned knowledge to other 
writing tasks? (134). This again places responsibility for transfer on the teacher, adding 
weight to the argument that transfer be taught, as well as foregrounding Perkins and 
Salomon?s assumption that transfer only occurs in academic settings.  
As seen in the above discussion, it is difficult to separate the instances of Perkins 
and Salomon?s assumptions occurring in isolation from one another given the fact that 
they build so intrinsically off each other. Building upon the assumption that transfer must 
 32 
be taught, Smit foregrounds Perkins and Salmon?s second assumption that transfer only 
occurs in academic settings, when he continues to cite case studies that focus solely on 
academic writing.  Most often cited is the work of Lucille McCarthy and Barbara 
Walvoord, whose case study deals directly with issues of writing transfer
11
. While they 
note that some students were able to transfer skills successfully, they ?cite example after 
example of students who have difficulty with such transfer. They cite example after 
example of students who try to apply knowledge and experience that is inappropriate or 
in ways that are not helpful? (129).  The fact that transfer does not always occur is an 
issue that cannot be ignored. However, the attention paid to areas where transfer is not 
successful is given an inordinate amount of interest. Furthering the insistence that transfer 
only occurs on academic settings, Smit voices the opinion that ?unless we actually hear 
them use the word to mean many different things?we cannot assume that writers know? 
how to use words in the many different settings in which they encounter from day to day. 
Again, the ?we? that Smit is invoking is the collective of writing teachers, who must 
witness their students using the skills they have imparted correctly in order to ascertain 
that the appropriate transfer has occurred. Seeing transfer in academic settings is 
important, but by only looking at academic settings, scholars and instructors alike are 
setting themselves up to miss the many and varied instances of transfer that exist beyond 
school walls.  
 While rather more implicit than the direct statements made by Smit that echo 
Perkins and Salomon?s assumptions, the terminology Smit employs also draws attention 
to the assumption that transfer should be viewed in solely academic settings. Utilizing the 
                                                
11
 Walvoord and McCarthy?s study, Thinking and Writing in College: A Naturalistic Study of Students in 
Four Disciplines, examined students in business, history, psychology and biology classes.  
 33 
same terms seen in ?Teaching for Transfer? and ?Transfer of Learning,? Smit further 
exhibits the novice/expert paradigm, directly citing Perkins and Salomon in his 
discussion. He places emphasis on the ?appropriate knowledge and skills? that are 
desired in transfer, a decision that is again placed in the hands of not the student, but 
those that control the knowledge: ?experts? within the specified discipline (130). Much 
like Beaufort, Smit is attempting to restructure and re-imagine the teaching of 
composition. Unlike Beaufort, Smit does recognize the problems inherent in attempting 
to see transfer in all its incarnations. He argues that ?writers may very well possess a kind 
of knowledge we might call ?general,? a kind of knowledge about many different things 
independent of particular contexts: knowledge of syntax, for example, or a general ability 
to adapt generic knowledge to particular situations? (133). Within this idea, however, 
lurk the ideologies within his word choice of ?general? and ?generic,? placed up against 
more valued ?specialized? and ?specific? knowledge. Like Beaufort, however, is the 
conflation of the social with different discourses and academic practices, further 
foregrounding Perkins and Salomon?s qualification that transfer must only be dealt with 
within academic settings.  
 Smit makes an important move towards seeing beyond Perkins and Salomon?s 
assumption that transfer only occurs in academic settings by including the work of 
Deborah Brandt, specifically her ?Sponsors of Literacy.? Smit uses the example of 
?Carol,? a woman ?who reports that she transferred the knowledge of a particular kind of 
specific detail, the conversational anecdote, from one context to another without any 
formal instruction at all? (131). Cases such as ?Carol?s? stand in direct opposition to the 
assumptions made by Perkins and Salomon. Transfer does occur in realms other than the 
 34 
academic, but due to the priority placed on the academy and the actions occurring within 
its walls, it remains the arena where the majority of study takes place. Additionally, 
observing a student or any subject of research within a classroom setting does provide a 
certain amount of control that venturing out beyond school would not provide.    
 Evidence of Perkins and Salomon?s third assumption that successful transfer 
involves transmission across a theoretical plane is quite abundant in Smit?s chapter. In 
attempts to define transfer, Smit calls upon the analogy of learning to throw/catch a ball. 
He concludes his analogy, stating that ?in each case, the ability to use a ball is a particular 
skill to be used in a particular manner in a particular context, and we would expect the 
skill of being able to use a ball in a certain way to be transferred only to other similar 
uses? (121). Smit harkens back to this analogy several times during his chapter and it 
stands to function as a framing narrative of sorts, not only allowing Smit to articulate how 
he sees transfer functioning, but also continually lending credence to Perkins and 
Salomon?s assumption that transfer involves movement, similar to the throwing of a ball, 
of a skill from one context to another. Central to this assumption and the ways in which it 
colors Smit?s discussion is the context in which one originally learns a skill and the future 
contexts one hopes to apply that knowledge. Smit further addresses this issue when he 
states that ?learning to write is a matter of learning how to use similar tools, such as 
language, discourse conventions, composing strategies, and problem-solving techniques 
in radically different contexts? (121). He correctly acknowledges that the setting in which 
one applies the transferred skill will change, but he does not address the possible need for 
the skill to adapt in order to better fit the situation, reflecting Perkins and Salomon?s third 
assumption.  
 35 
 Similar to the presence of the assumption that transfer only occurs in academic 
settings, evidence of Perkins and Salomon?s third assumption is seen most often through 
the language employed by Smit as well as the case studies he continues to cite. Repeated 
usage of the words ?similar tools,? ?general? and ?generalize? all place importance on the 
context of the skill being transferred, both when it is initially learned and later applied. 
However, to suggest that transfer can only occur in these more obvious areas is to further 
diminish the ability of the student to make broad connections and serves to again place 
responsibility on the teacher to facilitate transfer. Citing Barbara Rogoff several times 
throughout his discussion, Smit relies on her usage of his favored terminology in order to 
add support to his claims, citing her sentiment that ?cognitive skills seem to fluctuate as a 
function of the situation, which suggests that skills are limited in their generality? (120). 
As previously seen, to uphold and propagate such a dismal view of transfer serves to limit 
the arenas in which one is able to see its existence, a fact that is clearly seen when Smit 
notes that ?it is difficult to say just what kind of evidence would demonstrate sufficiently 
whether a person is capable of transferring certain kinds of knowledge and ability from 
one situation to another? (133). Seen throughout Beaufort?s text as well, by only looking 
for and expecting to see transfer in a number of set and prescribed circumstances, one is 
ultimately severely limited in what they are able to see and later discuss. While each of 
Perkins and Salomon?s assumptions hinder the appearance of transfer within case studies, 
the final assumption that transfer is mere transmission appears to be the most destructive 
and confining in terms of what those in the field of composition are able to witness and 
obstructs much of what Smit is attempting to propose regarding the future of writing 
instruction. 
 36 
 Throughout his chapter, Smit is attempting to identify a general set of writing 
skills that can effectively be transferred from one context to another, such as 
summary/evaluation, thesis statements, and supporting evidence (132). However, by 
supporting Perkins and Salomon?s notion that transfer is transmission, Smit is unable to 
locate the general skills he desires that will be useful in all writing situations, causing him 
to conclude that ?the degree to which any kind of knowledge or any given skill in writing 
is generalizable- that is, transferable from one context to another- will always be 
problematic? (133). Transfer will continue to appear ?problematic? when one is trying to 
view the same skill moved from a FYC classroom to a History, and looking for the skill 
to appear the same in each situation. A push to look at transfer as something other than 
movement between two situations is necessary in order to move beyond Perkins and 
Salomon?s assumptions.  
To be sure, Smit includes some insightful and progressive suggestions for the 
construction of writing programs in The End of Composition Studies. Despite making 
acknowledgements that reach beyond the scope of Perkins and Salomon?s influence, 
without moving beyond those boundaries, there is little room left for a change of 
curriculum. Discussed more adequately in the next and final chapter, in order to see 
transfer in its many incarnations and move beyond a view that places sole responsibility 
on the instructor to facilitate transfer, assumes transfer only occurs in academic settings 
and is an act of transmission, one must move toward a way of looking at students that 
encompasses the whole individual, with everything they carry. 
 37 
 
 
Chapter Five: ?The Things They Carried?- Moving Toward a New Conceptual 
Framework for Writing Transfer 
 Now we have arrived at what I take to be the heart of the matter: what does this 
all mean and how does it impact composition studies and how we view transfer? Now 
that it has become clear that Perkins and Salomon continue to color the ways in which 
transfer is conceptualized and discussed, how do we, as a field, move beyond such 
influences and begin to see the student as a whole individual so that transfer can be seen 
more frequently? This chapter will reference the changing way in which literacy has been 
discussed within composition as a model for the potential progression of transfer. 
Additionally, an overview of the way transfer can be discussed in the future will be 
presented based on the way it is referenced and conceptualized primarily in the work of 
Margaret A. Syverson, in addition to Paul Prior, Charles Bazerman, Jody Shipka, and 
Ann Dyson. Within these texts, the practice of transfer is discussed with new terminology 
which helps move away from Perkins and Salomon?s limiting view in order to see the 
broad existence of transfer across many spectrums.  
Often mentioned alongside discussions of transfer, the understanding and 
acceptance of multiple literacies and literate practices is a critical step towards gaining a 
new understanding of transfer, one that has been studied by the likes of Sylvia Scribner 
and Michael Cole, Brian Street, and Shirley Brice-Heath. While appearing to discuss only 
the topic of literacy, in ?Unpacking Literacy,? Scribner and Cole question the value of 
formal schooling and identify the fact that the social aspects that influence schooling 
 38 
need to be taken into account when studying the literate practices of individuals. Through 
their critique of the monolithic notion of literacy, they shed light on the multiplicity of 
values that characterize writing. Within their ethnographic study of the African Vai 
culture, they note that simply because writing instruction often takes place in school, that 
is not the only place it occurs (Scribner and Cole). Transfer is implicated here by Scribner 
and Cole?s acknowledgement that a skill taught by a teacher may not be used by students 
as initially intended, often involving a reappropriation by the student in order to best use 
the skill according to their various education needs and skill set. Since writing is a 
cognitive process that continues to build over time and space, knowledge acquisitions 
will of course take place outside of school and can have just as much, if not more 
influence on a person and their intellectual and literate development. 
Viewing literacy as a social practice is further discussed in Shirley Brice Heath?s 
?Protean
12
 Shapes in Literacy Events: Ever Shifting Oral and Literate Traditions.? Here, 
Heath recognizes the gate-keeping power at play in the value placed on academic 
literacy. After studying the town of Trakton and identifying their various literate 
practices, Heath discusses how oral and written communication inform each other despite 
the fact that written communication, especially that composed in academic discourse, is 
valued far more often than its counterpart. While viewing literacy as a social skill, the 
need to recognize the skills brought into each literacy event
13
 by each individual is 
paramount (Heath). When viewing this issue along side those of transfer, it becomes 
paramount to further understand and identify the skills brought into the classroom and 
                                                
12
 Heath utilizes the two-face nature of the Proteus to suggest the two-faced nature of literacy, involving 
oral and written communications. 
 
13
 A literacy event is viewed as any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of 
participants? interactions and their interpretive processes. 
 39 
those that influence students during their writing processes in order to view the way in 
which skills are transformed by each individual. Such a process allows different literacies 
to be privileged, but also instances of transfer to be recognized even when the integrity of 
the skill is changed or manipulated by students.  
Furthering the discussion of the power inherent to literacy definitions and the 
problems implicit when viewing one ?big? literacy, Brian Street, in his article, ?The New 
Literacy Studies,? offers a new approach that attempts to level the playing field by 
welcoming all literacy practices into the equation. Again placing importance on the 
social, Street argues that we must take such influences into account when viewing 
literacy events and attempting to understand their complexities. Recognizing the fact that 
everything is dictated by ideology, Street comments that we must uncover what those 
ideologies are in order to move to new conceptions of literacy and how its practices are 
enacted. These ideological powers tie literacy to culture and determine its power 
structures. Street is a proponent of ethnographic studies, praising their ability to study 
culture along with the subject of the study, which inevitably offers a much richer and 
diverse picture. Rather that attempting to study literacy itself, social practices should be 
the focus which will result in an understanding of what literacy practices are valued 
(Street). In terms of transfer, the context in which the skill is first acquired must likewise 
be acknowledged, along with a history of the individual and how their history determines 
their own appropriation and use of specific cultural tools.  Accordingly, ethnographic 
studies have gained in popularity, one of which, Beaufort?s, has been a central focus of 
this study. 
 40 
The task of directly relating such practices to transfer is accomplished in Larry 
Mikulecky, Peggy Albers, and Michele Peers? article, ?Literacy Transfer: A Review of 
the Literature.? Like knowledge acquisition, they note that literacy is ?situational,? or 
based on the context from which it is gained. While they conclude that literacy transfer 
can best be achieved through several different teaching styles, including modeling, 
practice and feedback, cooperative/social group studies, and cognitive apprenticeship, 
much of the responsibility is left to the teacher to facilitate the transfer, while it is 
ultimately up to the student to take that initiative. Along with previously noted 
assumptions made by Perkins and Salomon, Mikulecky, et al. do not acknowledge 
differences in levels of interest with regards to learning, acquisition of new skills, or 
interest in various subject matters, all of which can color the level of transfer success. 
When looking at the trajectory of change that literacy has undergone, it appears 
not only possible, but likely that the same can happen to transfer. While the term 
?literacy? has not changed itself, new terms have been added to offer further definitions, 
such as ?literacy event? and ?literacy practice.? Within the work of Syverson, Prior, 
Dyson, Shipka and Bazerman, the term ?transfer? may be explicitly discussed, but as a 
practice it is referenced under new terminology that better suits the activities to which the 
authors are referring. Just as literacy needed to be further defined in order to move 
beyond definitions that refer only to the skills of reading and writing, transfer needs to be 
re-defined so that connotations of physically moving something from one context to 
another can be moved to the background while the more important implications of 
transfer, such as its ability to help students better connect with and understand their 
studies is foregrounded.    
 41 
 Tackling several of the problems inherent in Perkins and Salomon?s work as well 
as Beaufort?s study and Smit?s analysis of FYC, Syverson proposes a way of looking at 
student?s writing that encompasses the wide variety of influences that affect their 
academic and non-academic lives. In The Wealth of Reality: An Ecology of Composition, 
Syverson deals with transfer not by applying a new term to the idea, but by discussing the 
trajectory of writing across space and time, detailing all of the ways in which a piece of 
writing is influenced by those that come into the writer?s life. Explaining the process 
from which the title of her book was created, Syverson details her ?awakening? moment 
in the preface. She describes a moment in which she realized the ?wide range of cognitive 
activities that seemed to involve no verbal language at all. (She) had the eerie sensation 
of someone who had been peering through a microscope for a very long time and then 
suddenly steps back and notices the vastness of the world? (xiv). Similar in scope and 
sensation is the realization that perhaps the reason that transfer has long been considered 
so elusive and unpredictable is not based on the nature of transfer itself, but the way in 
which it has been conceptualized and to a larger extent, the ways in which researchers 
have gone about uncovering its occurrence.  Taking a cue from Syverson and continuing 
to view transfer without the Perkins and Salomon microscope and instead taking a more 
ecological approach that focuses on the ?wealth of reality? surrounding issues of transfer, 
suddenly, transfer is everywhere as opposed to nowhere.  
Syverson characterizes the ?wealth of reality? as  
richly complex, interdependent and emergent; we are embedded in and co-
evolving with our environments, which include other people as well as social and 
physical structures and processes. Although composed of many individuals acting 
 42 
independently, the dynamics of processes occurring in these ecosocial 
environments is irreducible to discrete individuals. (xv) 
 Furthering the possibility for application within the confines of this study, Svyerson 
explains that ?we cannot hope to understand these situations by studying individuals in 
isolation; we need an ecological approach that considers the dynamics of systems of 
people situated in and codetermining particular social and material environments? (xv). 
When viewed in this way, it seems impossible to consider studying the writing process or 
instances of transfer in an individual without taking into account their own ?wealth of 
reality.?  
 Viewing individuals in isolation coincides with the ?writer-writes-alone? or 
lonely writer in the garret model of creation (Brodkey 59). While Beaufort does not 
situate Tim within a garret, she characterizes him in such a way that illuminates only the 
academic portions of his life, forgoing those events and interactions that exist outside the 
four walls of the classroom, or workspace. Such locations are institutionalized and create 
a friendly environment from which to conduct research, but as seen within this and other 
studies, create an incomplete and abstract view of the individual. While Beaufort?s 
research schemata is not as dangerous as say Sondra Perl?s in which she attempts to 
understand writing by placing her subjects in a soundproof lab
14
, it none the less colors 
the conclusions she is attempting to draw, especially when she is ultimately desiring to 
change the way composition is currently taught. Likewise, although Smit is not 
conducting field research, he is drawing from conclusions on the way individuals learn 
that again do not take into account the wealth of influences that determine an individual?s 
skill set. 
                                                
14
 See ?The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers.? 
 43 
 What needs to take place are studies that paint a colorful picture of the individual, 
not one in grayscale or black and white. Implementing her theoretical framework, 
Syverson traces the influences on Charles Reznikoff?s poem ?Early History of a Writer,? 
taken from his collection, Family Chronicles. Through detailed study and excavation of 
forgotten materials, Syverson is able to show connections between family conversations, 
journal entries written in Yiddish by Reznikoff?s parents, and shared sentiments among 
those of immigrant descent in the creation of Reznikoff?s final product. Viewed in a 
different way, one can see the various ways transfer occurred between Reznikoff?s social 
realm and that of his professional, writing career. Viewing such instances from a Perkins 
and Salomon perspective, one can see the existence of ?backward reaching, high road 
transfer? (26). Whether or not Reznikoff was aware of such practices cannot be 
determined, yet the influence remains and can visually be seen and accounted for. Had 
one only studied ?Early History of a Writer,? such information would not have been 
available and the conclusion may have been drawn that Reznikoff was operating under a 
?Shakespeare? metaphor where ?literary genius? supplies the impetus for one?s creation 
(Perkins and Salomon 22). However, by accounting for Reznikoff?s ?wealth of reality? 
and viewing the complex ecological system under which the poem was created, one can 
witness the complex margins of his poem and perhaps come to a better understanding of 
the its meaning and the writer?s life.  
 In a study that may more directly relate to practices seen in composition studies, 
Svyerson turns to her own classroom and examines students in a collaborative writing 
assignment. Moving from the four walls of the classroom, she audiotapes their writing 
process as they compose together in their dorm room and her office. While her 
 44 
audiotapes miss the body language and other non-verbal communication that would have 
taken place between the three, one is able to see how they move from casual conversation 
back to the assignment, discuss their personal lives, and ultimately how their shared 
experience of living in a loud dorm building determined the topic of their writing. Again, 
had Syverson or anyone reading their paper only looked at the final product or even 
conversations that had taken place in Syverson?s office, these facts would have been 
unaccounted for. While this instance may have been one where the transfer inhibited 
success of the assignment,
15
 it is not a situation where the students simply did not 
understand the assignment; they were just too inundated in their chosen topic to move 
beyond it. Following this analysis, Syverson notes that ?sometimes it seems as if teaching 
is a continuing process of finding out too late exactly how you have failed  your students? 
(121).  Likewise, it is often only too late when one realizes the limitations their 
theoretical framework has imposed along with the knowledge from which they draw 
upon.  
What appears necessary from the work of Syverson is the creation of new terms 
from which to discuss transfer, which would allow for more instances in which to see its 
existence. As noted in the beginning of this chapter, such terms are found among various 
other prominent scholars in composition studies. Within Paul Prior?s 
Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy and 
specifically his chapter entitled ?laminations,? Prior refers to Goffman?s ?laminations of 
activity? and the ways in which ?flexible transformations of footing and framing are 
typical of everyday communication? (146). Referred to in such a way, transfer because 
                                                
15
 Students were to propose a solution to a problem that had broad social implications. Syverson, as well as 
the student?s classmates, felt that the solution to a noisy dorm was too easily found and did not affect 
enough people to be effective in terms of meeting the assignment.  
 45 
the norm, as opposed to the exception and occurs everywhere- not just within the 
classroom. Additionally, using the term ?lamination? allows Prior, via Goffman, to place 
importance on the layering of skills and experiences whereas ?transfer? simply implies a 
moving from point A to point B. Likewise, Charles Bazerman prefers the term 
?intertextuality? in his chapter, ?Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts,? in his 
collaboration with Paul Prior: What Writing Does and How it Does It: An Introduction to 
Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices (83). The term ?intertextuality? allows Bazerman 
to discuss the interplay that is continually occurring between texts. As Bazerman notes, 
?almost every word or phrase we use has been heard or seen before. Our originality and 
craft as writers come from how we put those words together in new ways to fit our 
specific situation, needs, and purposes, but we always need to rely on the common stock 
of language we share with others? (83). To re-phrase, the originality of the text or writer 
is in the way the individual chooses to transfer what they have seen or heard in different 
contexts and apply them for their own uses. Unlike ?transfer,? ?intertextuality? assumes 
an ongoing relationship that is not one-sided: each is changed, challenging Perkins and 
Salomon?s notion that skills are static when transferred and remain fixed in time and 
place. 
Cited within this study, Jody Shipka refers to transfer within the confines of her 
more industrial term, ?repurposing? (301). When discussing the ways in which she 
organizes her composition courses, she encourages her students to incorporate the vast 
array of tools they have at their disposal in order to best complete the given assignment 
and later analyze their rhetorical choices. Again assuming change as the norm, rather than 
the exception, ?repurposing? allows room for the student to change the skill in order to 
 46 
met their own needs and places these actions as the preferred outcome as opposed to 
Perkins and Salomon?s negative instances of transfer. Shipka and Prior, along with Kevin 
Roozen and Julie Hengst refer to transfer activities as instances of ?semiotic remediation 
practices? in their article ??I?ll be the sun?: From Reported Speech to Semiotic 
Remediation Practices? (733). This term attends to the ?diverse ways that humans? and 
nonhumans? semiotic performances (historical and imagined) are re-represented and 
reused across modes, media, and chains of activity? (733). Again, while implying the 
necessity of change within the term?s definition, Prior, Hengst, Roozen and Shipka allow 
for transfer to be seen in various settings, not just academic, and in various incarnations.  
This new terminology that foregrounds change and offers broader instances of 
transfer continues in the work of Anne Dyson and her article ?Staying Inside the 
Curricular Lines: Practice Constraints and Possibilities in Childhood Writing.? Dyson 
utilizes the term ?reappropriation,? which highlights the fact that students will take skills 
and change them in ways they best see fit. Throughout her article, one is able to see what 
happens when children are not afforded the ability to individualize and reappropriate the 
skills presented within the classroom, ultimately stifling them and restricting the 
applicability and understanding of the knowledge presented.  
The diversity of terms present bolsters the need for new ways to view transfer that 
are not limited to and defined by the now dated work of Perkins and Salomon. However, 
with whatever term used now or created in the future, certain affordances and constraints 
are present. The creation of a term that correctly encapsulates all that goes into the act of 
transfer is probably not possible and it should be noted that such an implication or call is 
not the purpose of this study. Rather, it should be understood that no term will provide a 
 47 
?one size fits all? solution to the problem. Language is inherently limiting when 
attempting to refer to and define such complex situations and as such, it would appear 
that writings on transfer simply need to take into account the afforandances and 
constrictions offered by a chosen term or theoretical lens. Much debt must be paid to 
Perkins and Salomon for their contribution to the field, specifically the language given 
with which to discuss transfer. Within their work still remain helpful teaching methods 
and important insights. Transfer within the classroom and across modes and disciplines is 
difficult, when viewed in precisely the same way they describe. However, taking the 
foundational knowledge provided by Perkins and Salomon and acknowledging its 
hindrances, allows one to see transfer in new and exciting arenas, opening up the 
possibilities for freshman writing and writing across the curriculum. As with the creation 
of a term with which to refer to transfer practices, a ?recipe? like that provided by Perkins 
and Salomon that would guarantee that students leave the classroom with the skills 
needed to succeed in every future writing task is a lofty goal at best and unrealistic at 
worst. More practical, would be an approach to transfer that assumes that transfer does 
take place everywhere and that each student will transfer skills they learn in the 
classroom to other areas of their academic and non-academic careers, such transfer just 
may be for them to dictate and ultimately out of the hand of the instructor. An 
acknowledgement of this reality rightfully places agency and responsibility for education 
back on the student. 
 
 
 
 48 
 
 
 
Works Cited 
 
 
Atwell, Nancie. In The Middle: New Understandings About Writing, Reading and  
Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1998. 
 
Bazerman, Chuck and Paul Prior. What Writing Does and How it Does it: An  
Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 
Erlbaum Associates, 2004. 
 
Beaufort, Anne. College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing  
Instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State Press, 2007. 
 
Bergmann, Linda S. and Janet Zepernick. ?Disciplinarity and Transfer: Student?s  
Perceptions of Learning to Write.? Writing Program Administration: 31.1/2 
(Fall/Winter 2007). 124-149. 
 
Brodkey, Linda. ?Modernism and the Scene(s) of Writing.? Writing Permitted in  
Designated Areas Only. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. 
 
Dyson, Anne. ?Staying Inside the Curricular Lines: Practice Constraints and Possibilities  
in Childhood Writing.? Written Communication: 24.1 (January 2008). 119-159. 
 
Heath, Shirley Brice. ?Proten Shapes in Literacy Events: Ever Shifting Oral and Literate  
Traditions.? Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Ellen Cushman, Eugene R. 
Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, Mike Rose. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001. 
 
Milulecky, Larry; Peggy Albers and Michele Peers. ?Literacy Transfer: A Review of the  
Literature.? National Center on Adult Literacy. June (1994). 
 
Perkins, David N and Gavriel Salomon. ?Teaching for Transfer.? Education Leadership.  
September (1998). 22-32. 
 
---. ?Transfer of Learning.? International Encyclopedia of Education, 2
nd
 Ed. Oxford:  
Pergamon Press.  
 
Perl, Sondra. ?The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers.? Research in the  
Teaching of English. 13.4 (December 1979): 317-36. 
 
Prior, Paul. Writing Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the  
Academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998. 
 
 49 
Prior, Paul; Julie Hengst, Kevin Roozen, and Jody Shipka. ??I?ll be the Sum?: From  
Reported Speech to Semiotic Remediation Practices.? Text & Talk: 26.6 (2006). 
733-66. 
 
 
Scribner, Sylvia and Michael Cole. ?Unpacking Literacy.? Literacy: A Critical  
Sourcebook. Ed. Ellen Cushman, Eugene R. Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, Mike Rose. 
Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001. 
 
Shipka, Jody. ?A Multimodal Task-Based Framework for Composing.? CCC: 57.2  
(December 2005). 277-306. 
 
Smit, David W. The End of Composition Studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press,  
2004. 
 
Street, Brian. ?The New Literacy Studies.? Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Ellen  
Cushman, Eugene R. Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, Mike Rose. Boston: Bedford/St. 
Martins, 2001. 
 
Syverson, Margaret. The Wealth of Reality: An Ecology of Composition. Carbondale:  
Southern Illinois Press, 1999. 
 
Wardle, Elizabeth. ?Understanding Transfer from FYC: Preliminary Results of a  
Longitudinal Study.? Writing Program Administration: 31.1/2 (Fall/Winter 2007). 
65-85. 
 
Yancey, Kathleen Blake. ?Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.? CCC:  
56.2 (December 2004). 297-327.