You are on page 1of 26

Extreme Editing, Fluffy Writing, and Passion:

A Study of Writing Skill Transfer in Geology Majors


at North Dakota State University
By Jenna Murphy

Abstract_____________________________________________________________________
The study of transfer has a long and varied history within the fields of Rhetoric and
Composition, Psychology, and Education. This study aims to evaluate evidence of transfer in a
limited longitudinal study of five Geology majors at North Dakota State University. Three
students who participated in Geomorphology (GEOL 312) in the Spring of 2016, as well as two
Geology majors who did not, were interviewed for evidence of transfer in writing skills and
knowledge as these students entered their Capstone course, Field Geology (GEOL 450) in the
Fall of 2016. Writing samples submitted as coursework by these students were also analyzed for
evidence of transfer. The results of this study suggest that while transfer did occur, students were
unable to articulate how and what skills transferred, with a few notable exceptions. In addition,
student responses revealed significant gaps in discipline-specific writing knowledge and skills, as
well as misconceptions about the writing process in general. In addition to calling for further
research, this study reveals that students are in need of tailored and discipline-specific writing
instruction throughout their college career, in the form of a vertical-curriculum, in addition to
developing a vocabulary with which to analyze their writing.

Introduction__________________________________________________________________
The study of transfer, or the writing knowledge and practices that [students] can draw on, use,
and repurpose for new writing tasks in new settings (Yancey et al. 3) has been espoused as a
means to improve writing instruction in higher education. The purpose of the current research
study is to identify evidence of transfer, according to the above definition, in the writing skills
and knowledge of Geology majors as they progress through their program of study at North
Dakota State University. Specifically, this study aims to gather data from three Geology majors
who participated in Geomorphology in Spring 2016, as well as from two Geology majors who
did not, to determine in a comparative analysis if transfer occurred, and in what capacities, for
the five students as they enter their Capstone course, Field Geology.
Background
Three of the Geology majors who participated in this study, Mary, Jacqueline, and Kristeni, took
a newly-adapted course, Geomorphology in the Spring of 2016. Through mutual collaboration,
Dr. Kenneth Lepper from the Geology department at NDSU and I implemented Writing in the

Murphy 2
Disciplines pedagogy in the mid-level Geomorphology course. Course adaptations included
embedded writing goals within laboratory assignments, individualized student writing
conferences, and providing verbal and written feedback for writing assignments. Students also
completed a term project in the form of a Rhetorical Analysis, which was intended to increase
students disciplinary genre awareness. In addition, distinguishing observations from
interpretations was emphasized as a key part of scientific, geology writing. The goal of these
adaptations was to foster discipline-specific and tailored writing instruction for Geology majors
in their program at NDSU.
At the time of the current study, Mary, Jacqueline, and Kristen, had also taken various English
writing courses at NDSU, including ENGL 110, 120, and 324. Two Geology majors interviewed
in this study, Kurt and Bobby did not take Geomorphology last Spring, but had also taken similar
English writing courses earlier in their college coursework.
Although longitudinal studies of writing-transfer research have begun to appear in ongoing
discussion (e.g., Sommers and Saltz 2004), further examples are needed. Research into the
writing practices and writing knowledge of students in Field Geology provides another iteration
of transfer related study by shedding light on the very discipline-specific writing domain of
Geology. In addition, the unique course progression of these students from Geomorphology to
Field Geology provides an excellent opportunity to study transfer in a longitudinal study.
Research following students from Geomorphology and other courses intended to foster writingskill transfer to Field Geology provides one such limited longitudinal study.
With growing interest in transfer and how it affects learning, this study has the potential to
benefit not only those in the Geosciences, but also those interested in writing studies in general.
The results of this study apply to those from a wide variety of disciplines interested in
strengthening writing instruction and fostering the transfer of writing skills and knowledge.
Aspects of the results and conclusions of this study, such as the implementation of a writing
vocabulary and vertical curriculum, are other elements of this study that could apply broadly to
writing instruction in higher education.
In particular, the questions posed in this study are as follows:

How do Geology majors describe their writing practices and writing knowledge?
What concepts and processes do students report drawing on for writing in their advanced
geology course (GEOL 450), and where do they report having learned those concepts and
processes?
Is there evidence in student work and reflection that concepts and processes from
Geomorphology inform writing in Field Geology?

Literature Review______________________________________________________________

Murphy 3
The study of transfer has a long and expansive history, crossing the fields of writing studies,
psychology and education over the past 100 years. Theories and research abound, and yet,
consensus on how to foster transfer has yet to be reached. Even the term transfer is often
contested in contemporary research. Some experts have favored the term repurposing (Wardle,
2012) or have viewed it as imbricated with the conceptual lens of threshold concepts (AdlerKassner et al., 2012). Still others, such as David Smit in The End of Composition Studies (2007),
have questioned if transfer is even possible, or if it is instead a relic of wishful thinking. After
presenting a long list of difficulties to transfer, including instructor preferences and the writers
relation to the subject matter, Smitt argues that the degree to which any kind of knowledge or
any given skill in writing is generalizablethat is, transferable from one context to another
will always be problematic (133). Smits view tends to be regarded as an outlier on the transfer
question, however.
In my research, I have come to conceive of transfer as most closely aligned with the definition
provided by Yancey et al. in Writing Across Contexts: Transfer, Composition, and Sites of
Writing (2015). According to Yancey et al., transfer is writing knowledge and practices that
[students] can draw on, use, and repurpose for new writing tasks in new settings (3). This
definition remains central to my current research and objectives. Because of Kathleen Blake
Yanceys extensive background and years of experience with writing studies, and transfer in
general, I have considered closely the sources she calls upon in Writing Across Contexts. These
sources can be grouped broadly into the fields of writing studies, psychology and education, and
more specifically by their primary lens, such as treatment of threshold concepts (Adler-Kassner
et al.), discourse community (Beaufort), or metacognitive processes (Bergman and Zepernick).
In writing studies, several researchers have understood transfer to be closely related to threshold
concepts, including Adler-Kassner et al. (2012) and Clarke and Hernandez (2011). Adler-Kassner
et al. analyzed threshold concepts as evident in a cross-disciplinary context of writing and history
courses, while Clarke and Hernandez understand genre awareness as the key threshold concept in
fostering transfer. In addition, Dressen-Hammouda (2007 and 2014) has also explored genre
awareness as a significant factor in students developing disciplinary voice and recognition within
their field. Dressen-Hammouda understands genre mastery as situated within disciplinary
mastery. Dressen-Hammoudas research is of particular relevance to my current study because
she works within the framework of geoscience writing to shed light on the transfer question.
Also within the realm of writing studies, Beaufort (2007) develops and examines the role of
discourse community in students understanding writing and transferring it from one domain to
another. For Beaufort, the discourse community is central to fostering transfer In a similarly
student-focused approach, Robertson et al. highlight the role of prior knowledge in writing
transfer, arguing that without prior knowledge, students fail to see the interconnectedness
between writing contexts. The role of prior knowledge is a key lens for my own study it is
believed to foster transfer. Finally, Sommers and Saltz (2004) consider how student self-

Murphy 4
perception as a novice writer in first-year courses, rather than an expert writer, fosters
development of writing skills across their college years and beyond.
Dan Melzer (2014) integrates much of the above research in an approach to fostering transfer
known as the vertical curriculum. Melzers awareness of the value of genre and disciplinary
writing largely shape his proposal of a vertical curriculum for fostering transfer. Melzer also
proposes creating shared writing meta-language to discuss writing. I believe the data from my
current study strongly supports Melzers approach to vertical curriculum, both in terms of a call
for genre awareness and a shared writing meta-language.
In the realm of psychology, Bransfords How People Learn (2000) is clearly aligned with some
of the most current scientific research about how the mind works and how transfer can be
fostered. He also highlights the designations of expert and novice in his text. The
designation of expert and novice forms one of the sections of my analysis of student
interview responses as a key to fostering transfer.
Other researchers such as Bergman and Zepernick (2007) and Downs and Wardle (2007), believe
that the key to transfer involves changing the way we teach or refocus curriculum. Bergman and
Zepernick understand transfer as happening as a result of students learning how to learn how to
write, as do Downs and Wardle and Graff. Bergman and Zepernick highlight, additionally, the
contributions of Writing in the Disciplines instruction, which emphasizes writing instruction
from disciplinary experts within a given field, while Downs and Wardle suggest that an entirely
new conceptualization of first-year writing courses is necessary. In continuity with Bergman and
Zepernicks research. This view stands in contrast to that of Boone et al., who view writing
instruction predominantly in terms of general writing skills. General Writing Skill Instruction
(GWSI) has been widely debated and repeatedly debunked in writing studies. For Graff (2011),
metacognition, or teaching students to learn how to learn to write, can be strengthened primarily
through rhetorical analysis and other teaching practices. Students in Geomorphology were asked
to complete a rhetorical analysis as part of fostering writing skills.
As is evidenced by these sources, there is much to be considered when evaluating transfer.
Nearly every study above has called for additional research and longitudinal studies to
corroborate theories and practice related to transfer. The mutual benefit the fields of writing
studies, psychology, and education provide to each other is an important relationship that should
not go unexplored. In my own research, I integrate the contributions from these fields as I
analyze transfer within the interdisciplinary context of geoscience writing. Focused by the
definition provided by Yancey et al., I contribute to the ongoing discussion of transfer and reveal
student responses related to transfer.

Methods______________________________________________________________________

Murphy 5
The methodology involved in this study entailed several forms of research: first, scholarly
research related to the discussion of transfer, second, audio-recorded student interviews, and
third, analysis of student writing samples. Data collected through the research tools of interviews
and writing samples were analyzed for student writing practices and knowledge, writing
processes and concepts, and evidence of transfer in these areas from Geomorphology, or other
courses, to Field Geology.

A review of transfer-related research was conducted to provide a theoretical and


methodological framework for the study. As noted above, Writing Across Contexts
(2005), served as a primary methodological guide.

Students engaged in one audio-recorded interview that ranged from 30 to 60 minutes and
consisted of transfer-related questions. These interviews took place in a reserved study
room at NDSUs main library.
o Selective transcripts of the audio-recorded interviews were generated to assist me
in identifying observable trends, evidence of transfer and its characteristics, and
any other surprise findings.
o The interview questions also invited the students to appraise their own writing
abilities, in terms of expert and novice designations, and share their
experience of writing instruction both in and outside the field of Geology.

Student writing samples were collected for analysis of writing skill development. The
writing samples consisted of regularly scheduled assignments for Field Geology as the
students drafted portions of their Capstone paper. These assignments consisted essentially
of the major sections of a scientific report in the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods,
Results, Analysis, and Discussion)

A number of research limitations should be noted in this study, included a relatively small
participant sample size, the short-term nature of the study in terms of time-frame, and the limited
number of interviews and student writing samples.

Results and Analysis___________________________________________________________


Writing Practices of Geology Majors
One of the questions posed by this research study was to determine how Geology majors
described their writing practices and writing knowledge and which writing concepts and
processes they employ when they write. During the interviews, students were asked to describe
their writing practices and theory of writing. Students were asked, for example, if they revised,
outlined, or thought about their writing in advance. The results of the interviews reveal that while

Murphy 6
the writing practices of the students varied considerably, most students did revise, outline, and
think about their writing in advance.
In addition and as a point of comparison, it is significant that the students who had taken
Geomorphology in the Spring of 2016, Mary, Jacqueline, and Kristen, articulated several key
writing goals taught in Geomorphology as they described their writing practices. These three
students not only believed that their writing process had shifted since Geomorphology, but they
described this shift almost exclusively in terms of instruction received in Geomorphology. The
practices they described included the use of adequate and appropriate topic sentences, audience,
keeping descriptive and interpretive language distinct, as well as other issues such as consistent
verb tense and logical flow. In contrast, Kurt and Bobby, who did not take Geomorphology in the
Spring of 2016 did not articulate these same aspects as being a part of their writing practices.
Instead, Kurt and Bobby struggled to find meaningful language to describe the changes in their
writing practices over time, though they believed there had been some shift in these practices.
Writing Practices of Students who participated in Geomorphology, Spring of 2016: Mary,
Jacqueline, and Kristen
When asked about her writing practices, Mary, who took Geomorphology in the Spring of 2016,
believed that her writing process had shifted since taking Geomorphology, in terms of being able
to better differentiate descriptions from interpretations in scientific writing. She also described
that she had learned how to develop better topic sentences and make her writing flow as a
result of Geomorphology. Mary also frequently referred to using an outline for her writing in the
interview. She described her writing process in the following way: I start with an outlineI add
sentences, and at some point it becomes a paper, and I refine it from there.
Jacqueline was another student who took Geomorphology in the Spring of 2016. In the interview,
Jacqueline specifically credits the writing conference given to her in Geomorphology for the
changes in her writing practice. She stated that she now works harder to create better topic
sentences, keep verb tense consistent, and consider her audience. However, when asked what
specifically her writing process entailed, Jacqueline laughed and said, Throw words on a page,
and then Id read it back and make sure I had, like, the techniques I needed or writing things I
needed to have in the paper to have it make sense. When asked to explain further what this
meant, Jacqueline added that sometimes she creates a Geology-term word bank before she begins
writing her papers to make sure she covers important Geological content. This emphasis on
Geology jargon and content is consistent with the emphasis on Geology content knowledge I
discovered in other interviews and will be explored in a later section, Content Knowledge
versus Writing Knowledge. When I pressed Jacqueline about the specifics of her revising
process, she replied, I guess I really reorganizeits like extreme editing. Jacqueline also
believes that her writing practices have changed since taking Geomorphology in terms of her
revision process.

Murphy 7
Kristen, who took Geomorphology in the Spring of 2016, agreed that her writing process has
shifted since taking Geomorphology: I think a lot more about descriptive versus interpretive.
Definitely. Make sure that language is clear. She also spoke about her newfound awareness of
the importance of audience and topic sentences when she engages with writing assignments at
present. In terms of other writing practices, Kristen described the way she thinks about the
topic before beginning to write. She explained that first she tries to consider the question being
posed by the writing assignment, then considers all the possible responses, and finally, begins to
write after identifying the strongest response. She also explained her writing process as best
when it is completed, in a flowWhen I write, I just write. Kristen explained that the specific
adaptations from Geomorphology now inform her writing practice today.
Writing Practices of Students who did not participate in Geomorphology, Spring 2016: Kurt and
Bobby
When asked about his writing practices, Kurt, who did not take Geomorphology in the Spring of
2016, explains that I was never actually taught ever to outlineWhat I do is wait until the last
minute when the pressure is on, and I just writeeventually Ill go back through and read it and
fix the grammatical stuff and just go from there. Additional writing practices Kurt mentioned in
the interview included reading his writing out-loud, so he can hear it, in addition to prethinking, or thinking about what he is going to write before he sits down.
Kurts writing practices reveal some helpful techniques, such as the read-aloud and the prethink, but they also reveal a lack of any formal process and minimal project management skills.
For example, Kurt told me that he usually attempts to write his paper in one sitting. He explained
to me that he has written anywhere from 5-10 pages at one time because he usually waits until
the last minute. In general, last-minute writing is not supported by writing research.
While Kurt believes that his writing process has shifted over time, he could not explain
specifically how when asked to describe the changes in greater detail. Kurts writing practices
should be of concern to those in writing and composition studies. Kurt has advanced through
first-year writing courses and upper-level writing intensive courses and still displays
underdeveloped strategies for writing and difficulty articulating a writing strategy at all. While
researchers studying transfer want to believe that Kurt has learned writing skills from these
writing courses, his interview responses seem to indicate otherwise.
Bobby, who also did not take Geomorphology in the Spring of 2016, shows more developed
writing practices. He explained that sometimes he creates a hand drawn outline and gathers his
data for reference before writing. Bobby also described spending a considerable amount of time
thinking before he writes, I probably spend most of my time sitting and not writing anything.
When asked if he does any revising, Bobby hesitated, but added, usually if I revise things its
just based on what theyre asking for and making sure it sounds decent. Bobby was not sure if
his writing process had changed over the course of his college experience. When I asked Bobby

Murphy 8
if any of his courses had informed or shifted his writing process, he hesitated and said, maybe
some. As in the case of Kurt above, Bobby did not use any of the writing vocabulary terms used
by Mary, Jacqueline, and Kristen to describe his writing practices. While he admitted to
occasionally creating an outline, his description of these processes is far less specific and clear
than the practices identified by the students who participated in Geomorphology in the Spring of
2016. The meaning of the students description of writing practices in terms of a writing
vocabulary has significant implications for transfer, as will be discussed in the next section.
Transfer and a Writing Vocabulary:
One of the most salient results of the interviews highlights what researchers have discussed as
the critical relationship between transfer and a writing vocabulary. Although all of the students
interviewed above believed there was some transfer or shift in their writing skills and
knowledge from Geomorphology or other courses to Field Geology, outside of vocabulary given
to students in Geomorphology, they struggled to articulate clearly what that transfer wasor
what writing practices were being utilized by them from course to course. Yancey et al. explain
the struggle students in their study displayed with a writing vocabulary with striking similarity to
the Geology students in the interviews above: while the students could point to or describe
writing practices, they often struggled to find language that would facilitate their descriptions
(17). Based on Yanceys explanation, the experience of students being at a loss for words when
describing their writing seems to be a shared experience for many college writers and not unique
to the Geology majors who were part of this study.
Yancey et al. argue that without the vocabulary, or shared writing meta-language as David
Melzer would term it (84), students have a hard time developing the mental maps and
structures of learning. These mental maps (Yancey et al. 40) are described as essential to
fostering transfer and producing expert writers by Bransford in How People Learn: The fact that
knowledge is organized around important ideas or concepts suggests that curricula should also be
organized in ways that lead to conceptual understanding. Many approaches to curriculum design
make it difficult for students to organize knowledge meaningfully (42). A writing vocabulary
would give students the building blocks needed to create these structures and mental maps. As
Yancey, Melzer and others point out, students need a vocabulary not only to articulate their
experience, but also to reflect upon that experience and create the needed mental maps to foster
transfer.
Kurts interview response below clearly reveals a lack of writing vocabulary when he attempts to
describe what good Geology writing entails: You get a knack for how stuff gets structured,
how stuff gets brought in. I can recognize things, but I have trouble understanding what it is. I
can see how the topic shifts, and I can understand the shift, but I dont understand why it shifted.
And I know its a good thing it shifted. Clearly, Kurts use of the ambiguous terms, stuff and
unclear, it denotes a need for a writing vocabulary. When I asked Kurt to explain in greater

Murphy 9
detail the above experience of analyzing geology writing and putting it into practice, Kurt
replied, I can do it. I just dont know what it is Im doing.
During the interview, I attempted to find out what the what was that Kurt describedin other
words the writing skill or practice that was being used. When asked if the word transition
meant anything in terms of what Kurt was describing, he responded, I think it doesbut more
of a Speech thing during a speech. Here again, the interview response is representative of the
struggle of the interviewees to clearly articulate aspects of writing through the use of a
meaningful vocabulary. Furthermore, Kurts rejection of a specific and appropriate term for what
he was describing, transition, indicates yet another problem: when supplied with an
appropriate vocabulary term for what he was describing as a transition, Kurt believed that the
term was confined to another discipline the student viewed as distinct from a writing vocabulary.
In addition, other problems in the relationship between transfer and vocabulary were apparent in
the interviews. Misidentification of various aspects of writing was evident in the vocabulary
students used during the interview process. For example, when asked to describe his revision
process, Kurt explained that he looked for grammatical stuffNot so much spelling errors, but
very, um,it is prose? While the term prose holds various meanings, Kurt continued to use
the word prose in an unconventional way throughout the interview as a term that I came to
understand as designating language that was lacking in clarity. In a similar way, several of the
students used the word grammar or grammatical in the interviews to stand for any and all
aspects of the revision process. Here again, the need for a shared meta-language for writing skills
and knowledge is clear.
As described above in relation to student writing practices, the exceptions to the unmistakable
struggle with a writing vocabulary were evidenced by the students who took Geomorphology in
the Spring of 2016. All three of these students, Mary, Jacqueline, and Kristen, believed that they
had been introduced to a vocabulary for writing in Geomorphology. Kristen explained that she
was given a scientific vocabulary, in her program of study, but in terms of a writing
vocabulary, she said, probably from [GEOL] 312, but other than that, no. As mentioned
previously, the terms and concepts referenced by students as informing their current writing
practices including, appropriate topic sentences, separating observation or description from
interpretation, audience, flow, and appropriate verb tense, were explicitly taught in
Geomorphology as part of the writing goals for laboratory assignments. Researchers have offered
suggestions for additional writing vocabulary instruction.
In Writing Across Contexts, Yancey et al. propose a blueprint for rhetorical metaknowledge or
a shared writing metalanguage as suggested by Melzer. Yancey describes this metalanguage as,
writing-rich and writing-specific terms, concepts, and practices to foster transfer within
curriculum and provide students with a meaningful vocabulary to talk about their writing (56).
She goes on to provide a sequence of key terms as (1) audience, genre, rhetorical situation, and
reflection; (2) exigence, critical analysis, discourse community, and knowledge; (3) context,

Murphy 10
composing and circulation; (4) knowledge and reflection againeach set intended to support a
specific writing assignment or course unit (57). Giving students a vocabulary set, according to
Yancey, contributes to the passport students need to transition to new contexts (101).
Yancey et al. suggest building these key terms over the course of four units. In Unit One,
students are introduced to the terms and concepts and begin to incorporate them into their
writing. As part of Unit One, student complete a rhetorical analysis that utilizes Unit One terms,
audience, genre, rhetorical situation, and reflection. In Unit Two, students work with the key
concepts/terms about writing while they learn the importance of research and to conduct
research. The critical assignment begun in Unit Two, and concluded in Unit Three, is a research
essay. In Unit Three, students begin to integrate previously learned terms and concepts as they
actually begin writing the research essay. In Unit Four, students complete a reflection essay in
which they develop a theory of writing while utilizing Unit Four terms and concepts.
There are a number of parallels that can be drawn between Yancey et al.s proposed unit plan and
the curriculum adaptations implemented in Geomorphology. In Geomorphology, students were
asked to complete a rhetorical analysis of two articles regarding the same topic. One of the
articles was published in a Geology journal about new research regarding a glacier in Iceland.
The second article was from a pop-science news source reporting on the journal article. Like
Yanceys approach, the students were asked to reflect as they compared and contrasted the usage
of the rhetorical appeals, the audience expectations, and the genre involved in both of the
articles.
The usage of rhetorical analysis to foster transfer is not unique to Yancey et al. or the adaptations
in Geomorphology alone. For Graff, the rhetorical analysis he implemented with his students
served as a vehicle to fostering transfer as students developed meta-awareness about their
writing. Citing Bergman and Zepernick, Graff explains metacognition as teaching students how
to learn to write (Bergman and Zepernick cited in Graff 377). In addition, Graff cites Beauforts
research as yielding similar results about meta-awareness. In light of her study, Beaufort found
that those writers who were successful in a research setting had brought this meta-awareness of
writing to their work situation, allowing them to adapt to the different kinds of writing their jobs
demanded (Graff 377).

Murphy 11
Figure 1: Specific Vocabulary used in Writing Practice from Geomorphology (GEOL 312)

Vocabulary and Writing Practice:

Student:

Topic sentences

Mary: Ive learned some tactics in


[GEOL] 312 for basic things, like topic
sentences.
Jacqueline: I have started trying to do
the better topic sentencesI remember
that lab [goal] for some reason.

Audience

Jacqueline: I try to think about being


nice to the audienceLike what we
talked about in our conference.
Kristen: Make sure you know who
youre writing to, like your audience. For
[GEOL] 450 our audience is a
companywhich is a little bit different.

Observation/Description versus Interpretation

Mary: We worked on a lot of skills [in


GEOL 312], like separating observation
from interpretationI think that will help
in my professional career.
Kristen: The one that really stands out is
the descriptive versus interpretive
language.

Consistent verb tense

Jacqueline: I would talk in like different


tenses throughout one paragraph, and so I
try to like focus on that now too.

Murphy 12
Flow

Mary: Formatting, editing, flowthey


all matter to every paper no matter what
the subject is.

Expert or Novice?
Moving beyond descriptions of writing practice and vocabulary, Expert or Novice
designations are highlighted as a key area in fostering transfer by various researchers. In Writing
Across Contexts, Yancey et al. draw on expert and novice designations from Bransfords
How People Learn to explain how student self-designation as a novice open up pathways for
learning and transfer: noviceship is a state all writers potentially inhabit and yet not one that
students necessarily recognize their need to inhabitwriting development is predicated on
noviceship (39). Similarly, Sommers and Saltz conclude that writers who are willing to see
themselves as novices tend to transfer the most in the realm of writing (145). In terms of the
research at hand, all of the Geology students interviewed designated themselves somewhere
between a novice and an expert.
When asked if he would describe himself as an Expert or a Novice writer, Kurt stated, I
would consider myself not quite an expert, but maybe borderline underneath it because theres
still so much more I can learn. In similar terms, Kristen aligned herself closer to the expert.
The remaining students aligned themselves more closely to the middle of the Expert or
Novice spectrum. Mary explained, I would say Im more toward average. Likewise,
Jacqueline believes she is an average writer. Finally, Bobby said, Im an okay writer, I think. I
would definitely not say Im an expert writer. Student designations when asked whether they
were an Expert or Novice seem consistent with other responses during the interviews. For
example, the students seemed willing to admit areas for growth and improvement in their writing
skills and knowledge, particularly in terms of a writing vocabulary. In light of the research
above that proposes noviceship is a pathway for greater learning, the students self-designation
as somewhere between an expert and a novice suggests that the students possess the ability to
acquire new knowledgeand transfer that knowledge from one context to another. How writing
professionals can help foster that transfer will be discussed in the following section.
Relevance of Prior Courses and the Role of Genre
As noted previously, all three of the students who had taken Geomorphology reported that they
believed they had transferred skills from the course and that the assignments had been relevant to
their writing as professionals. While the three students who had taken Geomorphology in the past
found the assignments in Geomorphology relevant to their professional writing, they did not
think similarly about other writing courses such as ENGL 110, 120, and 324. The two other
students who had not taken Geomorphology reported similar attitudes toward English writing
courses.

Murphy 13
When asked about ENGL 110, 120, and 324, the students reported that the courses and
assignments associated with these courses were, useless and silly. Jacqueline described
ENGL 324 in the following terms: You would do random things and not know what you were
doingI think we did like a resume unit. Mary explained why she didnt believe her English
120 courses werent relevant for a number of reasons, including the fact that she doesnt see
herself doing a lot of things like memoirs or things like that in the future. I dont think it will
benefit me very much. Instead, students cited Biology, Soils, Mineralogy, Petrology, Wetland
Science, Eco Toxicology, Physics and Chemistry courses as being more beneficial to their
writing as geologists than any English writing course.
Presently, Kurt is in ENGL 324, or Writing in the Sciences. He explained that the course is
teaching him how to create a blog based on scientific journal articles. Kurts interview responses
indicate that he does not see any transfer of writing or rhetorical skills from his blog to his
Capstone paper in Field Geology. He explained his frustration saying, The way my Writing in
the Sciences is set-upand everybodys is so different, and its just.. Mine really has nothing
to do with scientific writing. Which is crazy. Kurt added that while he did think that learning to
write a science blog could be helpful to his professional career, he felt that it should not be part
of his Writing in the Sciences course. He thought learning how to write a science blog should be
part of a different course.
The belief expressed above by the Geology students that English writing courses are irrelevant to
their needs as Geoscience writers seems to be largely based on the students viewing writing
assignments as distinct and largely exclusive genres. The interviewed students struggled to see or
elaborate on the writing skills, concepts, or processes being used from one portion of a paper to
another, from one writing assignment to another, or from one writing course to another. For
example, Kurt explained that writing the Introduction and Previous Studies portions of the paper
in Field Geology were about the only two things that you will actually get from the other
courses the Geology majors will have to take. Kurt believed that because he had been taught
how to write the Introduction and Previous Studies portions of a scientific report in his Biology
courses that he could use those skills in his Field Geology Capstone paper. This kind of thinking
reveals a genre awareness that calls for specific writing skills and practices.
In writing studies, several researchers have understood transfer to be closely related to the
threshold concept of genre awareness, including Adler-Kassner et al. (2012) and Clarke and
Hernandez (2011). Genre awareness entails students being aware of the unique writing skills and
practices called for in a given genre and how those skills can apply elsewhere (Clark and
Hernandez 66-7). While Kurt wasnt able to articulate his genre awareness in these terms, he
was aware of the need to use different and specialized skills in different contexts.
In addition, Beaufort proposes a curriculum that encourages genre awareness and writing within
a discourse community as a means of fostering transfer (178-81). In a similar way, DressenHammouda (2007 and 2014) has also explored genre awareness as a significant factor in

Murphy 14
Geology students developing disciplinary voice and recognition within their field. These
researchers have concluded that developing students genre awareness and genre-specific skills is
a key factor in promoting transfer. The student responses above seem to confirm the researchers
findings: instilling genre-based awareness provides students with skills that they view as both
portable and discipline-specific.
Content Knowledge and Writing Knowledge
Genre also seems to figure in the disparity between the Geology students content knowledge and
their writing knowledge. When asked to describe their current assignments in their Capstone
course, Field Geology, the students described the assignments almost entirely in terms of
Geology content knowledge and disciplinary jargon. Students could articulate content knowledge
about the data gathering site they had worked in, the Little Badlands in Western North Dakota,
and about their data collection process in highly-specific disciplinary terminology related to
stratigraphy, sedimentology, and geologic formations. In the interview, Kurt described the data
collection process in active terms, including climbing bluffs in the Little Badlands of North
Dakota as well as working with various geologic maps and analyzing the stratigraphy and
sediment or the Arikaree layer.
However, Kurt and the rest of the interviewees admitted that they struggled to see how the data
collection and the field work associated with being a Geologist would actually be translated to a
final paper in Field Geology in terms of writing knowledge and skills. When asked if they found
the assignments in Field Geology building on each other, the students failed to see a
connection: I dont think so. I dont think theyre building upon each other because theyre each
their own individual thing (Kurt, Interview). Even when students were asked specifically if they
believed any writing skills were being used from one section to the next in their final paper, the
response was primarily negative. Mary explained, theyre differentI feel like the information
is different enough that it would be kind of difficult to build on it.
The student responses above display a disconnect from the objectives and vision for coursework
as established in the syllabus and assignment descriptions for Field Geology. The coursework for
Field Geology entails submitting drafts of various portions of the final paper. These drafts
necessarily build upon each other as portions of the scientific report and consist of the (1)
Introduction, Methods, and Previous Studies draft, (2) Geologic Map and Geological Cross
Section draft, (3) Stratigraphy and Structure (descriptive portions) draft, (3) Sedimentology and
Structural Interpretations draft, and (4) Final draft with figures and maps. An analysis of student
writing skills and knowledge as displayed in these drafts will be discussed in a later section. In
terms of building, these drafts require students to use various writing skills and knowledge
throughout the portions of the paper. For example, the grading criteria of these drafts require
students to describe and summarize throughout the paper as well as interpret results and
provide analysis.

Murphy 15
However, in the interview responses above it is apparent that students fail to see an
interconnectedness in writing skills and practices throughout their coursework in Field Geology.
As discussed above in relation to the relevancy of prior courses, a strengthened genre awareness
could equip students with the necessary writing knowledge to complement and build upon their
content knowledge as they approach writing coursework. According to the research discussed
previously by Adler-Kassner et al., Clarke and Hernandez, Beaufort, and Dressen-Hammouda,
creating genre awareness for Geology students within a curriculum could be a significant factor
in fostering transfer. In light of the fact that none of the students mentioned genre as an
important part of their writing instruction in any course during the interviews, bolstering genre
awareness could be critical in fostering transfer of writing skills and knowledge. The research
provided by writing experts above suggests that as Geology students approach new writing
assignments, or even sections within assignments, a more fully developed genre awareness could
equip them with transferable skills.
Absent Prior Knowledge and a Call for Vertical Curriculum
In How People Learn, Bransford explains that all new learning involves transfer based on
previous learning (53). This previous learning forms an understanding for what Yancey et al.
term prior knowledge (103-05). In their study, Yancey et al. found that prior knowledge
became one of the more important factors in how writers developedor didnt develop (103).
While Yancey et al. primarily discuss absent prior knowledge in college students key writing
concepts and familiarity with reading non-fiction texts as they transition from high school to
first-year writing courses (108), I believe that the Geology students I interviewed also displayed
absent prior knowledge in the interviews. This absent prior knowledge figured predominantly as
a lack of writing instruction that was particular to their field of Geology.
With the exception of Geomorphology for those who had taken it in the spring, the students
reported not having received any writing instruction that was specific to their discipline in
Geology. Kurt expressed his concern that the Capstone paper of 30-35 pages he is required to
produce in Field Geology is his first experience producing a Geology paper of any kind. Kurt
explained, We dont do many writings in the Geology department. Kurt was not alone. When I
asked Jacqueline what her Geology writing instruction had been like up to this point, she replied,
Ive only received any from you [in Geomorphology]. The thought of tackling a Capstone
paper of 30-35 pages in a specific discipline without any writing instruction in that field is,
indeed, a staggering thought. However, the experience of the Geology students I interviewed is
an all too common problem in many disciplines in higher education today. Many professors
would rather leave writing instruction to those in the English department, or they simply believe
that they do not have the time or resources to support writing instruction in their courses. These
concerns are valid and understandable; however, a growing body of research suggests that
writing instruction that is fostered through a vertical curriculum taught by discipline specialists
has the greatest potential to equip students with the portable and discipline-specific writing skills
and knowledge they need.

Murphy 16
The Geology department at NDSU does not employ, at present, a vertical curriculum. The
adaptations in Geomorphology were initiated by Dr. Kenneth Lepper as a response to the
problems he perceived in Geoscience writing in the past. If Geology majors at NDSU do not
have the benefit of a vertical curriculum in their discipline, what sources do they enlist to
develop their skills as writers in their field? When I asked students this question, they explained
that in addition to reading journal articles within their field they sought out the help of specific
individuals who could provide them with tailored writing instruction. While many of the students
explained that high school teachers and those at the Center for Writers were able to give them
generalized writing advice, they explained that the most relevant advice they received was from
those working within their field, such as advice from Geology professors and the instruction
provided them in Geomorphology.
Here again, in the descriptions of the sources students call upon to develop their disciplinespecific and portable writing skills, there seems to be an implicit call for a vertical curriculum. A
vertical curriculum, or a curriculum that entails students learning and completing more and
more complex writing as they move from their first year courses to their capstone courses
(Melzer 81), was apparent in the interview responses. Without realizing it, Kurt described a type
of vertical curriculum experience based on his description of the Biology courses he had taken.
Kurt explained that he believed he had actually learned more about writing from his Biology
classes, explaining that in the Biology department he had been asked to write papers throughout
his 200-, 300-, and 400-level classes. He thought that he had been able to build on his existing
skills, as he worked his way up through his Biology courses. Kurt did not feel similarly about his
experience in the Geology department. However, Kurt did reference the adaptations made to
Geomorphology, adding that I think Leppers on the right track with Geomorphology with
bringing in writing more.
Student Writing Samples from Field Geology
As mentioned in the introductory portions of this paper, the students in Field Geology have
submitted several drafts of their writing as they work to complete their capstone papers. At this
point, they have only completed drafts of the (1) Introduction, Methods, and Previous Studies
and (2) Stratigraphy and Structure (descriptive portions) of their papers. An analysis of the
student writing samples from Field Geology reveals that many of the writing practices described
by the students in the interviews are also present in the drafts they submitted as coursework. In
particular, students who participated in Geomorphology in the Spring of 2016 displayed many of
the aspects of their writing practice in these drafts. For example, in the interviews Jacqueline had
repeatedly commented on the importance of developing appropriate topic sentences in her
writing. In her description of Methods she wrote the following appropriate topic sentence:
Survey equipment was used to obtain a cross section map of the stratigraphy under the buttes
and hummocky hills. After this topic sentence, she went on to describe the survey equipment
used in the area.

Murphy 17
Other students displayed similar implementation of the writing practices they mentioned in the
interviews. In Marys description of Previous Studies, her writing displayed the flow she cited
repeatedly as a writing practice she has tried to implement since taking Geomorphology. She
used several transition words which aided the flow of her writing, such as also, lastly, and
however. Finally, Kristen displayed her awareness of audience as she crafted the descriptive
portions of her draft. Her frequent use of citations could be understood as an awareness of the
values of her audience. She frequently cited credible research as the basis for her description:
Hoganson et al. (1998) describe it as the most distinctive and continuous lithostratigraphic unit
in the White River Group in North Dakota.
Some of the difficulties stated by the students who had not taken Geomorphology were similarly
present in their writing samples. Bobby had explained in the interviews that the hardest part of
writing for him was crafting the first sentences. In his draft of the Introduction, Bobbys writing
sample displays this difficulty in terms of its length and overuse of geologic jargon: This study
was undertaken to map the geologic units of the little badlands [sic] and compile evidence of
geologic structures and sediment analysis relevant to determining the processes responsible for
the deposition of the existent and eroded sediments, the depositional environment, and the
provenance of sediments. In contrast, Kristens introductory sentence reads as follows: The
purpose of this study was to map the geology and present evidence and conclusions of the
geologic structures that are present in an 8 sq. mile area located in the Little Badlands of Stark
County (south-Western North Dakota). Kristens statement of purpose is far more clear and
appropriate in terms of the needs of the audience.
The most prevalent issues in Kurts writing were evident in relatively small, surface-level
grammatical issues, such as the overuse of the semi-colon and several missing words. Kurt had
emphasized the importance of editing in the interviews, as he explained, In order to be a good
writer, you have to write. And in order to write, you have to know how to edit. And in order to
know how to edit, you have to be a good editor. Perhaps Kurts emphasis on editing stems from
an awareness of his own need for additional editing in his work.
Writing Myths and Misunderstandings
One of the surprise findings as a result of this study was evidence of the persistence of writing
myths and misunderstandings as providing context for the general attitudes and frustrations the
students expressed about the writing process in the interviews. Several of the students explained
that they just werent natural born writers or expressed a belief that writing was some kind of
gnostic knowledge. Mary explained, I know some people are really good [at writing], and it just
comes naturally to them. But I dont feel like it really does that for me. There is general
consensus among writing studies experts and research that the natural born writer is a myth.
Instead, writing is understood as a skill that can be learned and developed. However, the
interview responses reveal that students continue to struggle with the idea of the natural born
writer. This underlying belief is detrimental to the possibility of transfer and the development of

Murphy 18
writing skills in general. If students believe that the ability to write is something intrinsic to a
person at birth, then students would merely be striving against the writing status they were
given at birth if they attempted to develop writing skills and transfer these skills from context to
context.
In addition, student responses were mixed in the ways they understood strategies for writing. For
example, when asked to describe in greater detail any strategies used in her writing, Jacqueline,
asked, Are there different strategies for writing? I didnt know that. The students response is
consistent with Roberston et al.s conclusion that many students do not have prior knowledge of
key writing conceptsthat serve as models (4). Furthermore, Jacqueline also thought that the
worst advice she had received was the following: I was always taught fluffy writingand its
kind of annoying now. I always feel like I have to use big wordskind of dancing around the
point without saying it. At another point in the interview, Jacqueline returned to the topic of
fluffy writing and explained how it conflicted with genre expectations as a Geoscience writer.
She explained that in Geology writing a writer needs to be, to the point. Both an unawareness
of different writing strategies as well as being instructed to use big words marked Jacquelines
writing experience as a realm of confusion and frustration.
Another student, Kurt, cited, passion, as the key to writing well. Again, researchers know that
while passion can provide impetus for writing, there is general consensus in writing studies that
the practices that inform passion make a difference in writing quality (e.g. Sommers and Saltz,
2004). As evidenced in the student responses above, the persistence of writing myths and
misunderstandings continues to shape student writing practices and reveals a need for a
curriculum that more effectively fosters transfer.

Discussion____________________________________________________________________
The results and analysis detailed above provide another instantiation of research related to the
transfer question through the lens of a relatively small and discipline-specific study. Because of
its limited nature, the results of this study are best understood as a contribution to the study of
transfer rather than a comprehensive and final explanation. At the same time, this study does
serve to highlight some of the key issues that those seeking to foster transfer face: students
continue to view writing knowledge and skills as an almost mystical process, or as a natural-born
gift bestowed on some at birth. Although those in rhetoric and composition studies know this is
not the case, why do so many university students continue to believe writing myths and
perpetuate misunderstandings in their writing? And how do we help students to view writing as a
skill that is developed, just like any other skill?
Furthermore, while students believed that they had transferred writing skills from
Geomorphology or other courses throughout their college career, this study highlights students
inability to articulate what skills, processes or knowledge transferred outside of a vocabulary

Murphy 19
specifically taught in Geomorphology. This reality points to the need for writing curriculum that
includes a meaningful vocabulary for students to describe about their writing and create the
needed mental maps to foster transfer.
Finally, this study also affirms research that supports a vertical curriculum that employs Writing
in the Disciplines pedagogy. In the interviews, students expressed the belief that a vertical
curriculum would aid them in developing the portable and discipline-specific writing skills that
they need to flourish as professionals and communicators in their field. Students explained that
the most valuable writing advice they received was from disciplinary experts working within in
their field. Those involved in developing curriculum and university writing programs, as well as
disciplinary experts interested in fostering writing instruction should evaluate these calls for a
vertical curriculum. Ever-present struggles to provide funding and resources in addition to
disciplinary-experts hesitancy to undertake such course adaptations, pose obstacles to a vertical
curriculum. At the same time, the possibility and benefits of such adaptations are evidenced by
the work of Dr. Kenneth Lepper and I in Geomorphology and the results of this study, in addition
to numerous other studies.
Overall, the results and analysis of this study point to the need for a vertical curriculum to
support transfer of discipline-specific and portable writing skills and knowledge, in addition to
the development of a vocabulary to discuss writing as part of that curriculum. While the transfer
question may not be fully answered at this time, this study raises not only the concerns and
frustrations of Geology majors at NDSU, but also potential solutions to those concerns. Those
interested in fostering transfer should take into consideration the possibilities presented in this
study and current research for improving writing instruction among Geoscience writersand all
writersat the college level.

Murphy 20
Works Cited
Adler-Kassner, Linda et al. The Value of Troublesome Knowledge: Transfer and Threshold
Concepts in Writing and History. Composition Forum, vol. 26, 2012.
Beaufort, Anne. College Writing and Beyond: A New Network for University Writing Instruction.
Logan, Utah State University Press, 2007.
Bergmann, Linda and Janet Zepernick. Disciplinarity and Transfer: Students Perceptions of
Learning to Write. Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, vol. 31,
no. , 2007, pp. 124-149.
Boone, Stephanie et al. Imagining a Writing and Rhetoric Program Based on Principles of
Knowledge Transfer: Dartmouths Institute for Writing and Rhetoric. Composition
Forum, vol. 26, 2012.
Bransford, John. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.,
National Academy Press, 2000.
Clark, Irene and Andrea Hernandez. Genre Awareness, Academic Argument, and
Transferability. The WAC Journal, vol. 22, 2011, pp. 6578.
Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle. Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions:
(Re)Envisioning First-Year Composition as Introduction to Writing Studies..
College Composition and Communication, vol. 58, no. 4, 2007, pp. 552-584.
Graff, Nelson. Teaching Rhetorical Analysis to Promote Transfer of Learning. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, vol. 53, no. 5, Feb. 2010, pp. 376-385.
Jarratt, Susan C. Pedagogical Memory: Writing, Mapping, Translating. Journal of the Council
of Writing Program Administrators, vol. 33, no. 1/2, pp. 46-73, 2009.
Melzer, Dan. The Connected Curriculum: Designing a Vertical Transfer Writing Curriculum.
WAC Journal, vol. 25, pp. 78-91, 2014.
Moore, Jessie. Mapping the Questions: The State of Writing-Related Transfer Research.
Composition Forum, vol. 26, 2012.
Robertson, Liane et al. Notes Toward a Theory of Prior Knowledge and Its Role in College
Composers Transfer of Knowledge and Practice. Composition Forum, vol. 26. 2012.
Smitt, David. Transfer. In The End of Composition Studies, 119-37. Carbondale, IL. Southern
Illinois University Press. 2004.
Sommers, Nancy, and Laura Saltz. The Novice as Expert: Writing the Freshman Year. College
Composition and Communication, vol. 56, no. 1, 2004, p. 124.

Murphy 21
Wardle, Elizatbeth. Creative Repurposing for Expansive Learning: Considering Problem
Exploring and Answer-Getting Dispositions in Individuals and Fields. Introduction.
Composition Forum 26, 2012.
Wardle, Elizabeth. Understanding Transfer from FYC: Preliminary Results of a Longitudinal
Study. WPA: Writing Program Administration 31.12 (2007), 6585. Print.
Yancey, Kathleen Blake et al. Writing across Contexts: Transfer, Composition, and Sites of
Writing. Boulder, CO, University Press of Colorado, 2014.

Murphy 22
Appendix A: Interview Questions

Student Identification:
A.

What is your name and major?

B.

How long have you been a Geology major?

Course Status:
1)

Did you take GEOL312 last Spring (SPR 2016) with Dr. Lepper?

1a. If you did, do you believe the assignments in GEOMORPHOLOGY were relevant to your
college writing and professional geology writing? To what degree did you find the instruction in
GEOMORPHOLOGY help you develop a foundation for better college writing and professional
geology writing?
1b. If you did not, which courses do you believe have developed a foundation for better college
writing and professional geology writing? Were the assignments relevant to your college writing
and professional geology writing?
a.

Describe those courses briefly. (i.e., what types of assignments, instructor style)

GEOMORPHOLOGY:
2)
Tell me about your major assignments in GEOMORPHOLOGYwhat were they about?
What did they require of you?

3)
Did each assignment build on the last one? Did you take anything away from the first
assignment and use what you learned in a later assignment, for example? What did you apply
from one assignment to another?

4)
Tell me about the writing process for each assignment. Was the process the same or
different? What were the steps you took to complete the assignment? What was the hardest part
of that process? What was the best part? Why?
FIELD GEOLOGY:

Murphy 23
5)
Tell me about your major assignments in FIELD GEOLOGYwhat are they about?
What do they require of you?

6)
Does each assignment build on the last one? Did you take anything away from the first
assignment and use what you learned in a later assignment, for example? What have you applied
from one assignment to another?

7)
Tell me about the writing process for each assignment. Was the process the same or
different? What is your approach? What are the steps you take to complete the assignment? What
is the hardest part of that process? What is the best part? Why?

8)
Are any of these assignments new types of writing for you? Are there any you havent
been asked to write in your academic experience yet? Which ones?

9)
How will you approach these new assignments? What will you do to figure out the best
way to write these? What specific things will you focus on?

10)
(WITH PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT IDENTIFIED) What did the assignment ask you
to do? How did you do that? What made it successful?

11)
Where did you learn this strategy/approach? (IF NECESSARY) Can you say more about
where that came fromdid you apply that from some other time it worked well for you? What
made it appropriate this time, or what made you think it would work well here?

Writing Practices and Knowledge:

12)
What is your writing process or theory of writing? Do you think about what youre going
to write, or plan your writing in advance? Do you revise your writing? If so, please describe this
process. What does it include?

Murphy 24
13)
How has it changed, progressed, and/or morphed since taking GEOL312/other writing
courses?

14)
How would you describe yourself as a writer right now? (Are you an expert or a novice
and why?)

15)
What does it take to be successful at writing? How would you advise someone else if
they asked you what it takes to be successful at writing as a geology professional vs. in daily
life?

16)
How would you describe the geology-writing instruction have you received up to this
point? How have you learned to write? What is the single most important writing advice you
have received? What is the worst advice youve received?

17)
Have you been given or developed a vocabulary to talk about your writingin Geology
writing and other courses? Do you feel confident using a writing vocabulary to talk about your
writing ?

18)
What did you learn in GEOL312/other writing courses that you have carried forward to
writing situations right now? How do you think that transfer happened? Did you transfer
deliberately, or are there things that transferred unconsciously?

19)
Is there one thing about writing, such as a writing tool, strategy, or thought, that you find
works for you all the time? If yes, what is it? Where did you learn it? Why does it work?

20)
etc.)

What kinds of writing are you currently engaged in? (summary, analysis, description,

21)

What rules or prior knowledge do you bring to your writing process?

Murphy 25
22)
What would you consider your best writingboth with Geology writing and outside of
it? Why is it your best writing?

23)
Thinking across all the writing that youve done so far in your college experience, how
does it all connect? How is it related? (PROBE: Would you say its all related, or that each
writing experience builds off the last? If yes, in what ways? Or is each writing experience
random, or new, with no connection to the past?)

i All names used are pseudonyms.

You might also like