PAB 4: Theories and Methods

Posted on October 28, 2016 inENG810, PAB #4

Bawarshi, Anis. “The Genre Function.” College English, Vol. 62, No. 3, Jan., 2000, pp. 335-360.

In this article, Bawarshi utilizes a study to explore the role of genre in creating texts, their contexts, and the identities of their writers and those who are written about. In this study, Bawarshi addresses both literary and nonliterary writers along with literary and nonliterary works. As the author states, studies on genre

have targeted the “reconceptualization of genre and its role in the production and interpretation of texts and culture” (335). In other words, work in genre has been ongoing for many years with functional and applied linguistics, communication studies, education, and rhetoric/composition taking the lead on this study. Genre is described as being an exploratory exercise instead of merely descriptive. It can be used beyond literature in that it addresses how “communicants and their contexts are in part functions of the genres they write” (335). Scholarship on genre has primarily been undertaken outside of literary studies, with genre studies possibly linking the entirety of English Studies via a rhetorical standpoint. Bawashi examines Foucault’s “author-function” to argue how genre can serve the same function: it is constitutive instead of regulative. Genre reproduces the situations to which it responds. The article then examines several rhetorical situations, such as Washington’s state of the union address and a doctor’s office visit to demonstrate how genre works in these situations. Bawashi also reviews genre in relation to lit studies, social semiotics (speech communications), and the constitution of social identity, arguing how genre is a part of our “typified rhetorical reality” (357). Ultimately, Bawarshi argues that through genre, all subfields of English Studies can be connected to address all types of texts in regards to their rhetorical situations  and performative aspects.

This source, though focusing moreso on literary situations, is helpful as genre is a popular methodology in many FYCs at this moment. This is especially true of writing programs with a transfer-based curriculum or TFT (teaching for transfer). As it compares with Nowacek’s chapter, they are almost like companion pieces as Nowacek cites Bawarshi as an authority on genre and utilizes genre in her transfer theoretical framework. As Bawarshi is often cited as an authority and proponent of genre, this article is indeed reliable and objective. In fact, Lauer (in the McComiskey text) cites him as a leading authority on this concept. The goal of the source appears to expand the usage of genre outside of literary texts into other English studies subdisciplines.

This source was helpful to me in understanding another methodology of teaching FYCs. Practically every writing program across the nation is utilizing some aspect of genre theory in FYCs to aid in the realization of transfer. Though I’m a huge proponent of writing about writing, understanding genre theory helps me formulate the understanding of how important genre is in the purpose of FYCs and their place in general education courses. I can definitely see myself reading more about genre and how it affects the overall purpose and implementation of FYC goals. I now have a more informed understanding of how to go about selecting appropriate genres for a WAW-focused FYC.

 

Nowacek, Rebecca S. “Transfer as Recontextualization.” Agents of Integration: Understanding Transfer as a Rhetorical Act, Studies in Writing and Rhetoric,  2011, 10-34.

In this chapter, Nowacek explores a new theoretical framework for transfer: recontextualization. For her study, Nowacek reviewed scholarship from psychology and rhetoric/composition, showing their limitations, then introducing her concept of transfer as recontextualization. She states that transfer

happens more often than believed or expected. In her research, she studied ten students through an entire semester to better understand how transfer works and happens, acknowledging the limitations of previous studies that relied on lab recreations and longitudinal studies. Though transfer isn’t entirely disputed, it hasn’t been entirely supported either. Skepticism regarding transfer comes from lack of understanding transfer.  The questions surrounding transfer regard its possibility, citing Detterman’s assertion that Gick and Holyoak’s analogical problem solving wasn’t real transfer due to the prompting of participants. Nowacek disagrees: “As individuals move from context to context, they receive cues, both explicit and implicit, that suggest knowledge associated with a prior context may prove useful in the new context” (12). Nowacek also cites Russell’s ball-handling analogy, noting that it doesn’t state transfer doesn’t exist, just that transfer from one context to another is not always done easily.  Tracing the concept of transfer back to Aristotle, Nowacek uses Perkin and Salmon’s low-road and high-road transfer, while suggesting that general cognitive strategies and local contextual knowledge are not mutually exclusive. Teaching to transfer is viable and noticeable, though it is “difficult to predict or control” (16). She notes various reasons why predicting/seeing transfer is problematic. To end her study, Nowacek includes five principles for her concept of transfer as recontextualization, which include genre as a rhetorical act.

This source is helpful in understanding how transfer is viewed and studied. It gives credit to the concept of transfer as a misunderstood concept, despite being at the heart of FYCs. FYCs are all about transferring the writing skills learned there to other writing situations. Interestingly, this source cites Bawarshi as an expert on genre, the heart of transfer theory. Nowacek relies on Bawarshi’s scholarship to fashion her concept of transfer as reconceptualization, which is genre-mediated. Nowacek is an expert in her field, so this chapter (a part of her text) is reliable in gaining a better understanding of transfer and how it can be properly utilized. Nowacek’s goal is to create a new theoretical framework for approaching transfer in order to better understand it and move beyond the limitations placed upon it by precious scholarship.

This source is very helpful in my understanding about WAW, as transfer is at its foundation. It has strengthened my view of the purpose of FYCs as being capable of transferring skills from one context to another, as Nowacek illustrates that it does indeed happen, even if it’s low-road transfer. Students are indeed able to see some value in what’s being taught in their FYCs. By understanding more about transfer, I will be able to better inform my stance on WAW and its implementation in FYC curriculum. I definitely have a more complete picture of how different theoretical frameworks can inform each other without automatically conflicting.