The Writing Transfer
Project:
Rhetorical Pedagogy and
the Promotion of
Transfer
Carol-Hayes
hayesc@gwu.edu
The Writing Transfer Project

Three of the four participating universities (OU,
WSU, SHU) followed a Writing About Writing
curriculum.

GWU did not use a Writing About Writing
pedagogy
GW’s Faculty Aren’t Going to Convert to
a WAW Approach

Full-Time Faculty in the University Writing Program:
 English Ph.D.’s (11 people)
 Creative Writing (2 people)
 Rhetoric and Composition Ph.D. (1 person)
 Classical Rhetoric (1 person)
 Law (JD) (1 person)
 Philosophy (1 person)
 American Studies (1 person)
 History (1 person)
 Women’s Studies (1 person)
 Education (1 person)
Borrowing from WAW:
Rhetorical Pedagogy
Downs and Wardle, 2007
“Rhetorical pedagogy” is a strong pedagogical focus on the
rhetorical situation—who is speaking, to whom, for what
purpose, using which genre conventions. At GW, we saw
rhetorical pedagogy as demonstrating that writing is
context specific rather than governed by universal
rules—thus [students] learn that within each new
disciplinary course they will need to pay close
attention to what counts as appropriate for that
discourse community. (Downs & Wardle, 2007, p.
559)
GW’s Rhetorical Pedagogy Study

11 faculty volunteered to participate
 2 self-identified as “rarely” requiring students to
analyze the rhetorical situation of …
 Course readings*
 Their own writing
 Peers’ writing

4 self-identified as “frequently” requiring students
to analyze the rhetorical situation of…
 Course readings
 Their own writing
 Peers’ writing
George Washington University’s
Y1 Research Question
Would students whose faculty frequently required
them to analyze the rhetorical situation (audience,
genre, purpose) in course readings, their own
writing, and their peers’ writing, show different
gains over the course of the semester than students
whose faculty rarely required such analysis?
Possible Gain: Pre- to post-semester papers
 Strong gains in both groups (“frequent” vs “rare” rhetorical
analysis)
 BUT, the data sets were too small (23 and 17) to make definitive
claims about one group outperforming the other.
Y1 Reflections: Hypothesis
Even without following a WAW curriculum, the repeated
practice of analyzing the rhetorical situation will result
in greater familiarity with terms associated with audience,
purpose, and genre, and hence more (and more
sophisticated) reflections on those concepts.
Y1 Results: Audience
Frequent Rhetorical Analysis = 26 students (normalized to 19)
Rare Rhetorical Analysis = 19 students
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Frequent
Rhetorical
Analysis
Rare
Rhetorical
Analysis
Wrote for
Prof. or
Peers
General
Audience
Invoked
Specific
Audience
Invoked
Audience
Shapes the
Writing
Y1 Results: Genre
Frequent Rhetorical Analysis = 26 students (normalized to 19)
Rare Rhetorical Analysis = 19 students
30
25
Frequent
Rhetorical
Analysis
20
15
10
Rare
Rhetorical
Analysis
5
0
Acknowledged Discussed as Linked to Goal
or Discussed
about
or Audience
Conventions
Y1 Results: Purpose
Frequent Rhetorical Analysis = 26 students (normalized to 19)
Rare Rhetorical Analysis = 19 students
35
30
Frequent
Rhetorical
Analysis
25
20
15
Rare
Rhetorical
Analysis
10
5
0
Purpose for writing beyond
classroom
Y1 Reflections: Discussion

Students whose professors “frequently” required
analysis of the rhetorical situation in…
Course readings
 Their own writing
 Their peers’ writing

…showed a pattern of more frequent references
(sometimes marginally so) to audience and genre,
but particularly more frequent advanced
understandings of the concepts.
Audience, Cross-Institutionally
Y1 Reflections
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
WSU
OU
GW (frequent)
GW (rare)
General
Audience
Invoked
Specific
Audience
invoked
Audience
Shapes the
Writing
Genre, Cross-Institutionally
Y1 Reflections
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
WSU
OU
GW (frequent)
GW (rare)
Genre
Discussed
About
Conventions
Linked to Goal
or Audience
Change in Perception of Genre,
Cross-Institutionally (Y1)
40
35
30
25
WSU
OU
GW (frequent)
GW (rare)
20
15
10
5
0
Change in Perception of Genre
Rhetorical Pedagogy and Transfer

Doug Grant (2012), in his study of writing
transfer from college to the work place, wrote:

an understanding of how to extract genre features
from models, how to analyze an audience, and how
to use genre knowledge to interpret information will
help students develop rhetorical knowledge that they
can transform when thrown in the deep end of new
rhetorical environments. In addition, if we can help
them become more conscious about what to observe
and what questions to ask in a new rhetorical
environment, we will have gone a long way toward
helping them transform, if not simply transfer, this
knowledge. (p. 590)
Select Bibliography
Downs, D. & Wardle, E. (2007). “Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions:
(Re)Envisioning ‘first-year composition’ as ‘introduction to writing studies’.”
College Composition and Communication, 58(4), 552-584.
Grant, D. Crossing boundaries: Co-op students relearning to write. CCC 63(4), 558592.
Perkins, D.N., & Saloman, G. (Jan-Feb. 1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound?
Educational Researcher 18(1), 16-25.
Reiff, M.J. & Bawarshi, A. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use
prior genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year writing.
Written Communication 28 (3), 312-337.
Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding ‘transfer’ from FYC: Preliminary results of a
longitudinal study. WPA: Writing Program Administration 31(1-2), 65-85.
Wardle, E. (2009). "Mutt genres" and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write
the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765789.